Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the detailed description of the invention fails to describe details corresponding to the follow claim limitations:
Claim 1, lines 5-7: “a double-walled section . . . configured to increase a radial thickness of said section”. See also claim11.
Claims 12-14: all limitations therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-14 & 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falk, US 4,264,229 in view of Baker, US 1,946,661.
Claim 1. At Fig. 1, Falk shows a torque limiting coupling, comprising:
a shaft (11);
a coupling ring (10) arranged coaxially with said shaft, said coupling ring having a lateral surface (22) in contact with a lateral surface (21) of said shaft; said coupling ring having a double-walled section with an internal annular pressure fluid chamber (15), configured to increase a radial thickness of said section when said fluid chamber is filled with pressurized fluid and to thereby increase pressure forces and friction forces between the lateral surface of said coupling ring and the lateral surface of said shaft in order to enable a torque transfer (col. 1, lines 4-16), and wherein said coupling ring transfers substantially no torque, when said fluid chamber is not filled with pressurized fluid (col. 3, lines 33-43);
said coupling ring having a shear tube (24) configured to close said pressure fluid chamber to hold pressure in said pressure fluid chamber;
a shear plate (26) connected to said shaft;
said shear plate being configured to cut off a tip (25) of said shear tube in order to open said pressure fluid chamber when said shaft slips relatively to said coupling ring when the torque is higher than a predefined maximum transferable torque given by the pressure in said pressure fluid chamber and a design of the torque limiting coupling (col. 3, lines 45-55); and
a bushing (26) forming part of said shear plate, and wherein said shear plate is fixed to said shaft by the bushing.
Falk does not expressly disclose the shaft (11) formed with a conical connector, the bushing (26) being conical, and a central bolt fixing the bushing to the shaft. At Fig. 2, Baker shows a shaft (10) formed with a conical connector, a conical bushing (11), and a central bolt (13) fixing the bushing to the shaft. At page 1, lines 40-45, Baker discloses that using a central bolt to connect a conical bushing to a shaft with a conical connector is a conventional method for attaching a bushing to a shaft. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify the torque limiting coupling of Falk by making the shaft (11) with a conical connector, the bushing (26) as conical, and using a central bolt to fix the bushing to the shaft, since that is a convention method for attaching a bushing to a shaft.
Claim 2. Falk shows the shear plate (26) with only one recess having a shear edge configured to cut of the shear tube (25). However, it would have been obvious to provide the shear plate of Falk with two recesses since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts. The duplication of parts for a multiplied effect has no patentable significance and is considered well within the purview and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc. 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977).
Claim 3. As noted with regard to claim 2, it would have been obvious to provide the shear plate with two recesses. Furthermore, the torque limiting coupling it is noted that the coupling would function equally well with or without having the recesses being radially opposite one another. As such, having them radially opposite one another is deemed to be design consideration that fails to patentably distinguish over the combination of Falk and Baker.
Claims 4-5. Falk does not expressly disclose the opening angle of the shear plate recess as at least 40 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the opening angle of the shear plate recess as at least 40 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 6-9. Baker does not expressly disclose conical connector having an angle of taper between 12 and 35 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the conical connector with an angle of taper between 12 and 35 degrees for the same reason noted with regard to claims 4-5 above.
Claim 10. Wherein the bushing (26) and shear plate (26) of Falk are made in one piece.
Claim 11 & 16. At Fig. 5 Falk shows first shaft (11), a hollow second shaft/rotor (51), and the coupling ring having a coupling sleeve (12, 13) and pressure chamber (15) radially between the first and second shafts.
Claims 12-14. Falk does not expressly disclose the coupling sleeve’s length between 80 and 180 mm or its thickness between 10 and 30 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the coupling sleeve’s length between 80 and 180 mm and its thickness between 10 and 30 mm for the same reason noted with regard to claims 4-5 above.
Claims 17 & 18. The torque limiting coupler of the combination of Falk and Baker includes a driven shaft (see “shaft” at col. 3, line 12 of Falk); provides overload protection; and is sufficient size/assembly to be configured for use in a main drive of a tunnel boring machine, as such configuration is defined in the instant application at paragraph 0031.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mitchell discloses a shaft (15) formed with a conical connector, a conical bushing (12), and a central bolt (16) fixing the bushing to the shaft.
Falk ‘256 and Bergstrom disclose torque limiting couplings.
WO 2023/051981 is the WIPO equivalent of the instant application. It is cited here because it incudes an international search report.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 et.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights