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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09 May 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document, but there is no copy of DE 112019001604. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein regarding DE 112019001604 has not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification should not make reference to a specific claim, such as in line 30 of page 1;
The specification should include a section titled “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” in accordance with 37 C.F.R. 1.74 (“When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings…”; MPEP 608.01(f)); and
The “List of symbols” table on page 17 includes graphics which cannot be reproduced in the specification portion of a patent publication, and so the table should be included as a figure rather than as part of the specification.
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 Objections
Claims 9, 13, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, line 2, “an input-side sun gear wheel” should be --the input-side sun gear wheel--, since it was claimed in line 2 of claim 8; in line 9 of claim 13, “7,076” should be --7.076--; in claim 14, line 6, “the hub housing” should be --a hub housing--, since the hub housing was not previously claimed; in claim 15, line 3, “the 10, 12 or 14 different gears” should be --10, 12, or 14 different gears--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Throughout the claims the terms “stage”, “gear”, “planetary sets”, and “ratio” each appear to be used with multiple meanings and/or the same meaning as another of the terms, such that it is difficult to determine what is being claimed. For example, “stage” is used seven times in claim 1, with apparently two different meanings, one of which is perhaps “ratio”, which term is used in claim 2. As a further example, in claim 1, lines 5 and 6, it is not clear what is being claimed by “planetary set(s)”. Lines 13-15 of page 5 of the specification describes the input transmission EGG, for example, as comprising a two-stage planetary gear and a one- or two-stage planetary gear “with first planetary sets Z30, Z40, Z50”, thus describing the input transmission as having two planetary gears with a total of either three or four stages and three planetary sets. Since the two planetary gears with three or four stages appears to fully describe the gearing of the input transmission (though it is not clear if “planetary gear” refers to a toothed wheel or a planet gear and central gear combination, etc.), it is not clear what three elements are being referred to by the term planetary sets, and so it is not clear what is being claimed by “with first planetary sets” and “with at least one second planetary set”.
In the last four lines of claim 1, it is not clear what is being claimed by “comprise gear stages with at least 6 clutches and at most 7 clutches are shifted” because the wording appears to claim that the gear stages have at least 6 clutches and that at most 7 clutches are shifted as two separate limitations. For the purpose of this action, these lines are being interpreted as --comprise gear stages with at least 6 clutches and at most 7 clutches which are shifted--.
In claim 3, “the first 5, 6 or 7 gears” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. It is not clear what elements of the wheel hub is being claimed, and it is not clear what is being claimed by “transmits these gears to the hub sleeve”.
In claim 3, it is not clear what is being claimed by “in a doubly coupled outgoing manner”.
In claim 3, “the ring gear wheel” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 4, it is not clear how an input transmission may be “from a drive sleeve”.
Claim 6 appears to be incorrectly claiming “the secondary transmission is a further planetary gear” in addition to “a subsequent single-stage planetary gear…as a secondary transmission” already claimed in claim 1.
In claim 8, line 6, “the rings of the clutches” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. Clutches do not necessarily have rings, or may have multiple, different rings.
In claim 8, line 7, “the one-piece planetary gear” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis. In claim 1, “planetary gear” appear to refer to a set of gears, so it is not clear how a planetary gear may be a “one-piece” planetary gear.
In claim 8, line 9, it is not clear what is meant by a “backstop function” and how it is distinguished from an “overrunning lock function” as claimed in line 12.
In claim 9, lines 7-8, it is not clear what “the second and third planetary gears” of the secondary transmission refer to, since the secondary transmission was previously claimed in claim 1 as “a subsequent single-stage planetary gear”.
In claim 9, it is not clear what is being claimed by “lower tolerances” or by “narrow tolerances”.
In claims 9, 12, and 13, it is not clear how a gear wheel can have a negative number of teeth.
In claim 10, line 5, it is not clear what sort of clutches are being claimed by “circumferential clutches”, since this is not a known type of clutch, circumferential clutches are not specifically described in the specification, and all of the disclosed clutches appear to include a circumferential aspect.
In claim 11, line 11, it is not clear what is being claimed by a “backstop function”, and how it is distinguished from an “overrunning lock function” as claimed in line 14.
In claim 16, “preferably” makes the scope of the claim uncertain because it is not clear if the limitations following the term are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no reference nor combination of references was found which teaches a wheel hub with a multi-speed transmission comprising an input transmission with a two-stage planetary gear set and a single- or two-stage planetary gear set, and a secondary transmission with a single-stage planetary gear set, wherein the multi-speed transmission has at least six and at most seven clutches, as required by claim 1, as best understood. A two-stage planetary gear set is understood as a planetary gear set in which each planet gear has two sets of teeth, and a single-stage planetary gear set is one in which each planet gear has a single set of teeth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U. S. Patent 6,048,287 (Rohloff) April 2000 - a wheel hub multi-speed transmission with two, two stage input planetary gears and a subsequent planetary gear (two stage; eight clutches).
WO 2014/072344 (Kurth et al.) May 2014 - wheel hub transmission with two, two stage planetary gears and at least one subsequent single stage planetary gear. Has eight clutches.
CN 203902777 (Wang) October 2014 - wheel hub multispeed transmission having an input transmission with two two-stage planetary gear sets and a secondary transmission with a two-stage planetary gear set. Has eight clutches.
U. S. Patent 9,279,480 (Antal et al.) March 2016 - fig. 5c shows a wheel hub transmission with a two-stage planetary gear set and two, single-stage planetary gear sets. Has nine clutches.
U. S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0305496 (Liu) October 2016 - a wheel hub transmission with a two-stage planetary gear set and what appears to be two single-stage planetary gear sets.
DE 10 2016 225 159 (Nitsch et al.) June 2018 - bicycle planetary transmission with clutches and brakes shifted by a gear shifting drum.
DE 10 2018 007 326 (Donner) October 2019 - a wheel hub multi-speed transmission with one or two two-stage planetary gear sets, with clutches shifted by a shift drum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERRY LYNN ESTREMSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-7090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
SLE
/SHERRY L ESTREMSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655