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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/19/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 4/19/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Foreign References submitted 4/19/2024 in the application file, WO2016151455A1 and WO2018215933, have not been considered because they were not listed on an IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 9a, 9b, and 12. 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on Page 9, line 15 applicant’ references “the embodiment of figures 3 and 4”, however, it appears based on the description that applicant intends to reference Figures 4 and 5. Likewise, on Page 11, line 1.
On Page 12, line 19 applicant refers to “the first embodiment (figures 3 and 4)” however previously the first embodiment in the description is noted to be in figures 2 and 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 it appears there is a typographical error and “ a first and a second helical springs” should read – first and second helical springs--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4 it appears there is a typographical error and “ a radial inner portion” should read – a radial outer portion--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1
“support means” – “rolling bearings, especially a pair of ball bearings” Page 5, line 31- Page 6, line 5
“elastic means” – “elastic assemblies each comprise an arched helical spring having a fixed pitch along its circumferential extension” Page 8, lines 27-29
“actuator means” – “a disc actuator comprising two spokes” Page 6, lines 19-20
Claim 22-24
“sealing means” – “a gasket for rotary elements, such as a labyrinth seal” Page 7, lines 22-23
“axial thrust means” – “a Belleville washer” Page 8, lines 2-3
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.
Claim 1-27 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside relative to the said radial outer surface" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether applicant intends to claim a product or a process. Note
that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be produced does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2113. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes applicant intends to claim the structure of “the actuator and tubular portion of the hub are integral”.
Claims 2-27 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said inner and outer portions" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites two different “a radial inner portion” but no “outer portion” as it is referred to in line 6. However it appears there may be a typographical error and the second reference to “a radial inner portion” in line 4 should be “a radial outer portion” in order to be consistent with the drawings, spec, and claim reference. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intended to mean “a radial outer portion” in line 4.
Claims 12, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "said inner and outer portions" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites two different “a radial inner portion” but no “outer portion” as it is referred to in line 6. However it appears there may be a typographical error and the second reference to “a radial inner portion” in line 4 should be “a radial outer portion” in order to be consistent with the drawings, spec, and claim reference. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intended to mean “a radial outer portion” in line 4.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "both connection portions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-11, 14-17,22-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dell, US20180163788.
Regarding independent claim 1, Dell discloses A filtering pulley (24, Fig. 2b) comprising: a hub (26, Fig. 2b), which is designed to be fixed to a rotary shaft rotating around an axis (A) (20, Fig. 1, A, Fig. 3a), and a crown (28a, Fig. 2b), which is coaxial to said hub (28a coaxial to 26, Fig. 2b), said hub defining a tubular portion (26a is tubular, Fig. 2b) and at least one connection portion, which is configured to connect said hub to said rotary shaft (32, 36 Fig. 1, 2b), said crown defining a radial outer surface defining at least one profile which is configured to cooperate with a mechanical transmission element (40, Fig. 2b cooperates with belt 14, Fig. 1), and a radial inner surface, which is radially arranged on the inside relative to the said radial outer surface (surface inside 28a, opposite 40, Fig. 2b) said filtering pulley comprising; a filtering assembly (30, 30a, 30b, Fig. 2b) operatively interposed between said hub and said crown (Paragraph [0038], lines 1-2) and comprising a housing integral to said crown (28a, Fig. 2b) and carried so that it can freely rotate relative to said hub by means of support means (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-3), said filtering assembly defining a space (chamber 47, Fig. 2b) and comprising elastic means (30, Fig. 2b), which are housed inside said space in a movable manner (Paragraph [0040]), and actuator means (26b, Fig. 2b), which are configured to cooperate in contact with said elastic means (26b cooperates in contact with 30, Fig. 4) said actuator means being manufactured as one single piece together with said tubular portion of said hub (26b is integral with 26a, Fig. 2b, 4, 7. Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed product is intended to be produced does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2113) and said housing cooperating in contact with said radial inner surface of said crown (Paragraph [0042], lines 5-8; integral, as previously claimed, thus cooperating in contact).
Regarding claim 2, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein said housing (28a, Fig. 2b) comprises a cup-shaped element (28a is cup shaped, Fig. 2b), which is configured to cooperate with said radial inner surface (28a is integral, thus cooperates in contact, Fig. 2b), and a closing element (28b, Fig. 2b), which is configured to cooperate in contact with said cup-shaped element in order to define said space (Paragraph [0042], lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein said cup-shaped element (28a, Fig. 2b) and said closing element (28b, Fig. 2b) are shaped so as to define an axial opening, through which said actuator means are partially housed inside said space (30 housed inside space between 28a, 28b, Fig. 3b, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein at least one of said cup-shaped element and said closing element defines a pair of axial projections (50a, 50b, Fig. 3a; 45a, 45b, Fig. 4; Paragraph [0040], lines 5-8), said projections dividing said space into two portions where said elastic means can move due to the action of said actuator means (45a, 45b divides space into two halves where 30 can move due to action of 26, 44, Fig. 3a).
Regarding claim 5, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 2, and wherein said closing element (28b, Fig. 2b) is radially comprised inside said cup-shaped element (28b is radially inside 28a, Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 6, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein said elastic means (30, Fig. 2b) comprise an elastic assembly (30a, 30b, Fig. 2b), said elastic assembly comprising at least one helical spring (30a, 30b, Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 7, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein said elastic assembly (30, Fig. 2b) comprises a first (30a, Fig. 2b) and a second helical springs (30b, Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 8, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein said elastic assembly comprises at least one spring carrying element (46, Fig. 2b), which is configured to at least partly house an axial portion of said at least one spring (46 houses axial portion of 30, Fig. 4) and guide the sliding of said at least one spring in said space (46 guides sliding of spring 30, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 8, and wherein said elastic assembly (30, Fig. 4) comprises an intermediate spring carrier (46, Figs. 4 and 5), which is intermediate between the ends of said at least one spring (53, Fig. 4), said spring carrier comprising a pair of lateral walls (53, 58, Fig. 5), which are configured to surround an axial portion of said at least one spring (surrounds spring 30 axially, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 4, and wherein said actuator means (26b, Fig. 4) comprise a disc provided with a plurality of spokes (spokes 44, Fig. 4), said spokes comprising a radial inner portion on the outside relative to said space (portion of spokes 44 of 26a outside of space 28, Fig. 3b), a radial outer (see examiner interpretation above) portion, which is internally housed in said space (44, Fig. 4 is housed inside space 28, Fig. 3b) and cooperates in contact with said elastic assembly (44 cooperates with springs 30, Fig. 4), and an axial portion, which joins said radial inner and outer portions (portion of 26a joining radially inner portion of 26a to spokes 44, Fig. 3b, 4).
Regarding claim 14, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein between said projections (45a, Fig. 4) and said elastic assembly (30, Fig. 4) there is an angular clearance (α) (angle between 45a and 43a, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and wherein between each spoke (44, 44b, Fig. 4) and said elastic assembly (30, 43b Fig. 4) there is an angular clearance (β) (angular clearance between spoke end 44b and elastic assembly 43b, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein between said projections (45a, Fig. 4) and said elastic assembly (30, Fig. 4) there is an angular clearance (α) (angle between 45a and 43a, Fig. 4) wherein said actuator means (26b, Fig. 4) comprise a disc provided with a plurality of spokes (spokes 44, Fig. 4), said spokes comprising a radial inner portion on the outside relative to said space (portion of spokes 44 of 26a outside of space 28, Fig. 3b), a radial outer portion, which is internally housed in said space (44, Fig. 4 is housed inside space 28, Fig. 3b) and cooperates in contact with said elastic assembly (44 cooperates with springs 30, Fig. 4), and an axial portion, which joins said radial inner and outer portions (portion of 26a joining radially inner portion of 26a to spokes 44, Fig. 3b, 4), wherein between each spoke (44, 44b, Fig. 4) and said elastic assembly (30, 43b Fig. 4) there is an angular clearance (β) (angular clearance between spoke end 44b and elastic assembly 43b, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 17, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein both connection portions are manufactured separately (26 and 36 are separate, Fig. 1, 2b) and connected to said tubular portion (36 threaded fasteners are connected to 32, 20, Paragraph [0036], lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 22, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising fluid-level sealing means (76, Fig. 2a, 2b), which are configured to be operatively interposed between said actuator means (26, Fig. 2b) and said housing (28a, Fig. 2b; Paragraph [0056]) and/or between said actuator means and said hub (100, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 23, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 22, and wherein said sealing means comprise a gasket (76, Fig. 2a, 2b), which is radially interposed between said actuator means (26, Fig. 2b) and said housing (28a, Fig. 2b; Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 24, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 22, and wherein said sealing means comprise a gasket (84, Fig. 7), which is arranged between said tubular portion of said hub (26a, Fig. 8) and said actuator means (26b, Fig. 8), and an axial thrust means (100, Fig. 8), which exert an axial force between said actuator means (26, Fig. 8) and said gasket (Paragraph [0058], lines 7-13).
Regarding claim 26, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein said crown (28a, Fig. 4) comprises a radial projection extending from said radial inner surface (46, Fig. 2b) and configured to cooperate in axial contact with said housing (46 contacts 28b axially, Fig. 2b, 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 12-13, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell, 20180163788.
Regarding claim 12, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and a filtering pulley, however Dell does not disclose wherein each spoke defines a through opening arranged at a radial end of each spoke.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spokes of Dell to remove material at the radial end and have a through opening, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlsen, 136 USPQ 184. One would have been motivated to remove material at the radial end of the spokes, because removal of material would lighten the pulley, and reduce the moment of inertia of the actuator, thus optimizing the damping effect between the actuator and the crown.
Regarding claim 13, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and wherein each spoke (44, Fig. 4) comprises impact elements (44a, 44b, Fig. 4), which are configured to cooperate in contact with said elastic assembly (Paragraph [0040], lines 1-5), said impact elements being integral to said spoke (44a, 44b, are integral with 44, Fig. 4).
Dell does not disclose said impact elements being made of a polymer material. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the impact elements of Dell with a polymer material, since it has been held to within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. One would have been motivated to make this modification to increase the damping effect between the actuator and the pulley and reduce wear on the actuator where it is in contact with the spring during filtering.
Regarding claim 19, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein said support means comprise a rolling bearing (Paragraph [0039], lines 1-2; Paragraph [0067], lines 1-3).
Dell does not disclose a pair of rolling bearings.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bearing of Dell to have a pair of rolling bearings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make such a modification, to further support the crown on the hub, and optimize friction between the crown and hub to ensure optimal damping/filtering.
Regarding claim 20, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and wherein said support means comprises a roller bearing (Paragraph [0039], lines 1-2; Paragraph [0067], lines 1-3) arranged symmetrically relative to a middle line of said spokes (bearing 38 is concentric to 26 and thus spokes 44, and is thus symmetrical relative to middleline of spokes, Fig. 2a, 4).
Dell does not disclose a pair of roller bearings.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bearing of Dell to have a pair of roller bearings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. One would have been motivated to make such a modification, to further support the crown on the hub, and optimize friction between the crown and hub to ensure optimal damping/filtering.
Regarding claim 21, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 19, and wherein said support means (38, Fig. 2b) are arranged symmetrically relative to a middle line of said profile (38 is symmetric relative to profile 40, Fig. 2b when assembled).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell, US20180163788 in view of Cariccia et al., US10753453.
Regarding claim 9, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 8, and an elastic assembly.
Dell does not disclose wherein said elastic assembly comprises a pair of spring carrying elements, which are arranged at respective ends of said at least one spring and are provided with a pair of lateral walls, which are configured to surround an axial portion of said at least one spring, and with a head, which is connected to said lateral wall, said head cooperating in contact with said actuator means.
Cariccia et al., discloses wherein said elastic assembly comprises a pair of spring carrying elements (43, Fig. 3), which are arranged at respective ends of said at least one spring (Column 3, lines 5-8) and are provided with a pair of lateral walls, which are configured to surround an axial portion of said at least one spring (Column 3, lines 10-13), and with a head (46, Fig. 3), which is connected to said lateral wall (Column 3, lines 10-13), said head cooperating in contact with said actuator means (46 cooperates with 50, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering pulley of Dell to have the spring carrying elements of Cariccia et al. in order to ensure the spring is properly located within the chamber. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to guide the spring ends within the chamber to ensure smooth damping between the crown and hub.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell, US20180163788 in view of Ichikawa et al., US4710152.
Regarding claim 25, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a filtering pulley wherein said crown (28, Fig. 2b) defines a profile (40, Fig. 2b).
Dell does not disclose a pair of profiles, which are radially staggered relative to one another.
Ichikawa et al. teaches a filtering pulley having a pair of profiles (4, Fig. 1) , which are radially staggered relative to one another (profiles 4 for belts are staggered radially, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering pulley of Dell to have a pair of profiles radially staggered as taught by Ichikawa et al. in order to accommodate two belts on the engine crankshaft to maximize the number of driven auxiliary components which “usually is driven by the other end of the crank shaft through a pulley and one or more belts” (Column 1, lines 14-22).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell, US20180163788 in view of Manzoor, US20170059028.
Regarding claim 27, Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a crown (28, Fig. 2b) having an annular inner portion (inner portion of 28 opposite of 40, Fig. 2b), which defines said radial inner surface (inner portion of 28 opposite of 40, Fig. 2b), and a radial outer portion (40, Fig. 2b), which defines said radial outer surface (40, Fig. 2b), as well as a connection portion between said radial outer portion and said radial inner portion (28a between 40 and inner radial portion inside of 28a, Fig. 2b, 6).
Dell does not disclose the crown has a “H”-shaped section.
Manzoor teaches a filtering pulley having a crown with an “H”-shaped section (134, 136, 128, Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the crown of Dell to have an H-shaped section as taught by Manzoor to extend the radius of the pulley to accommodate the length of the belt, optimize speed output of crankshaft pulley with respect to the driven auxiliary components, and minimize material use in manufacturing the pulley.
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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619