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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112 second rejections of claims 8-11 are persuasive. The 112 second rejection of claims 8-11 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 1-4 are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument is that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify the gearbox of Ralph with the clutch of Yesilcimen to arrive at the invention in claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that Ralph already teaches a first clutch 19 connecting the first barrel to the transmission shaft and a gearbox which connects the second barrel to the transmission shaft. Yesilcimen, a teaching reference teaches that clutch and gearbox are variable mechanical transmission means. Because Ralph discloses a first clutch and based on the teaching of Yesilcimen and contrary to applicant’s arguments a modifying Ralph by using a second clutch instead of a gearbox as suggested by Yesilcimen would not alter the design of Ralph or how it operates.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ralph (DE 102012218517 A1) in view of Yesilcimen (US 2021/0317800 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Ralph teaches a reversible hydraulic pump for setting the pitch of a propeller of a turboprop (Fig. 3) comprising two barrels (2 and 4) (Figs. 3-4) connected by a transmission shaft (15) (Fig. 3), wherein the tow barrels are connected to the transmission shaft via a first clutch means (19) and a gearbox (17) (Figs. 3-4, see “embodiment of the invention” paras. 2-6) so that when so that, when the transmission shaft rotates in a first direction, only the first barrel is driven in rotation by the transmission shaft, and so that, when the transmission shaft rotates in a second direction opposite to the first direction, only the second barrel is driven in rotation by the transmission shaft (Fig. 3, see “embodiment of the invention” paras. 2-6).
Ralph does not teach a second clutch means
However, Yesilcimen discloses a variable mechanical transmission device for coupling shafts in a gas turbine engine wherein the “the variable mechanical transmission may comprise any one of the following elements: a clutch, a gearbox, a variator, etc.” para. 0018. Here is the teaching that a clutch and a gearbox are used for as mechanical transmission and are interchangeable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Ralph by substituting the gearbox with a second clutch means as taught by Yesilcimen as a means to connect/disconnect the either of the barrels from the transmission shaft.
Regarding claim 2, Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen further teaches the first clutch means (19) comprises a first flywheel connecting a first barrel (4) of the two barrels to the transmission shaft when the transmission shaft rotates in the first direction and uncouples the first barrel from the transmission shaft when the transmission shaft rotates in the second direction (Ralph, Fig. 3; “embodiment of the invention” paras. 2-6); the second clutch means connects a second a second barrel (2) (Ralph, Fig. 3) of the two barrels to the transmission shaft when the transmission shaft rotates in the second direction and uncouples the second barrel from the transmission shaft when the transmission shaft rotates in the first direction (Ralph, Fig. 3; “embodiment of the invention” paras. 2-6). Although Ralph as modified does not specifically sates that the second clutch means comprises a second flywheel, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to provide a second flywheel on the second clutch since in Ralph, the first clutch means comprises a flywheel.
Regarding claim 3, Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen further teaches further comprising two symmetrical and opposite angled plates (5), and two casings (se Figs. 3-4), a first casing accommodating a first plate (5) and a first cylinder (113), and a second casing accommodating a second plate (5) and a second cylinder (113), the first and second plates and the first and second casings being fixed with respect to the transmission shaft, central axes of the plates and of the barrels being coaxial (Ralph, Figs. 3-4 “embodiment of invention” paras. 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Ralph as modified by Yesilcimen further teaches the second casing further comprises an electric motor for driving the transmission shaft, the motor including a rotor formed on the transmission shaft and a stator secured to the second casing (Ralph, Figs. 3-4 “embodiment of invention” paras. 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-11 are 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745