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 .
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 § 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) 1, 4-8, 10-17, 19-24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dell, US20180163788 in view of Mevissen et al., US7954613.
Regarding independent claim 1, Dell discloses a filtering pulley (24, Fig. 2b) comprising: a hub (26, Fig. 2b), rotatable around an axis (A) (20, Fig. 1, A, Fig. 3a), and a crown (28a, Fig. 2b) coaxial to said hub (28a coaxial to 26, Fig. 2b), wherein said hub comprises a tubular portion (26a is tubular, Fig. 2b) and actuator means (26b, Fig. 2b), and comprises at least one connection portion (26a, Fig. 2b), which is configured for connection to a rotary shaft (32, 36 Fig. 1, 2b), and said crown comprises a radial outer surface defining at least one belt-engaging profile (40, Fig. 2b cooperates with belt 14, Fig. 1), and a radial inner surface opposite the radial outer surface (surface inside 28a, opposite 40, Fig. 2b); and a filtering assembly (30, 30a, 30b, Fig. 2b) operatively interposed between said hub and said crown (Paragraph [0038], lines 1-2); wherein the filtering assembly comprises a housing carried by said crown (28a, Fig. 2b) and freely rotatable relative to said hub by means of support means (Paragraph [0037], lines 1-3), said housing (28a, Fig. 2b) comprising a cup-shaped element (28a is cup shaped, Fig. 2b) configured to cooperate with said radial inner surface of said crown (28a is integral with crown, thus cooperates in contact, Fig. 2b; Paragraph [0042], lines 5-8) and a closing element (28b, Fig. 2b) configured to cooperate in contact with said cup-shaped element to define a space therebetween (chamber 47, Fig. 2b; Paragraph [0042], lines 5-8) and define an axial opening through which said actuator means is partially housed inside said space (30 housed inside space between 28a, 28b, Fig. 3b, 6), elastic means (30, Fig. 2b), housed inside said space in a movable manner (Paragraph [0040]), and said actuator means (26b, Fig. 2b) positioned to cooperate in contact with said elastic means (26b cooperates in contact with 30, Fig. 4).
Dell does not disclose the hub comprises a monolithic body, and at least one connection portion connected to the monolithic body configured for connection to a rotary shaft.
However, Mevissen et al. teaches a decoupler assembly, where the hub comprises a monolithic body (40, Fig. 3), and at least one connection portion connected to the monolithic body configured for connection to a rotary shaft (Column 4, lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dell and Mevissen et al. to have a monolithic hub with a connection portion for connecting to a rotary shaft, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine still in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 16 (1893). One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to minimize the number of components required for assembly of the pulley, and ensure rotation of the hub and actuator with the crankshaft (Column 4, lines 55-58; Mevissen et al.).
Regarding claim 4, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, 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, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, 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, modified 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, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein said elastic assembly (30, Fig. 2b) comprises a first helical spring(30a, Fig. 2b) and a second helical spring (30b, Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 8, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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), wherein said spokes cooperate in contact with said elastic assembly (44 cooperates with springs 30, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and a filtering pulley, however Dell does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of spokes define 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, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 11, and wherein each of the plurality of spokes (44, Fig. 4) comprise an impact element (44a, 44b, Fig. 4) configured to cooperate in contact with said elastic assembly (Paragraph [0040], lines 1-5).
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 14, modified 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, modified 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, modified 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 portion and said radial outer portion (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, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a hub and a connection portion.
Dell does not disclose wherein said at least one connection portion comprises a first connection portion as part of the monolithic body of said hub.
Mevissen et al. teaches a decoupler pulley, wherein said at least one connection portion comprises a first connection portion as part of the monolithic body of said hub (Column 4, lines 55-58; 40, Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dell and Mevissen et al. to have a monolithic hub with a connection portion for connecting to a rotary shaft, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine still in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 16 (1893). One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to minimize the number of components required for assembly of the pulley, and ensure rotation of the hub and actuator with the crankshaft (Column 4, lines 55-58; Mevissen et al.).
Regarding claim 19, modified 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, modified 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 midline 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, modified 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).
Regarding claim 22, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further comprising fluid-level sealing means (76, Fig. 2a, 2b), 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, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 22, and wherein said sealing means comprise a gasket (76, Fig. 2a, 2b) radially interposed between said actuator means (26, Fig. 2b) and said housing (28a, Fig. 2b; Paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Dell discloses the limitations of claim 22, and wherein said sealing means comprise a gasket (84, Fig. 7) 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, modified 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(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dell, US20180163788 and Mevissen et al., US7954613 as applied to claim 8, above, and further in view of Cariccia et al., US10753453.
Regarding claim 9, modified 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 modified 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 and Mevissen et al., US7954613 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ichikawa et al., US4710152.
Regarding claim 25, modified 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 modified 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 and Mevissen et al., US7954613 as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Manzoor, US20170059028.
Regarding claim 27, modified 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 modified 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights