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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/717,829 filed on 06/07/2024. Claims 1-26 are pending; claims 6, 9, 12, 15-16 and 18 are withdrawn, claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19-26 will be examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Figs.2-16, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/16/2025.
Note: Claims 6, 9, 15, 16 are also withdrawn for the following reasons:
Claim 6 recites “one or both or all differential or planetary gears are constructed with crown gears or with bevel gears.” is directly to Fig.2 see ¶[0090]-[0093] of USPGPUB version, Fig.4- ¶[0105] of USPGPUB version.
Claim 9 recites “a first rotational coupling between a rotary connection not coupled to the respective orbital pinion or planetary gear carrier of two different differential or planetary gears” is directed to Fig.6. As Fig.6 depicts a rotary connection (22(6) and 27(6)) not coupled to their respective orbital pinion and they rotate at same speed.
Claim 15 recites “the freewheel function is switched off, preferably by bringing the relevant coupling gear into a non-rotatable state in order to switch off the freewheel function, wherein in particular the coupling gear is fastened to a multiply cranked shaft, which in turn is eccentrically mounted in at least one disk, which itself is rotatably received in a pivotable and/or displaceable ring-shaped lunette.” The elected Fig.1 shows a single planetary gear set (10, 11, 12) and no additional secondary or tertiary planetary arrangement. In contrast, claim 15 describes an optional, additional feature (i.e. switch off feature) can be incorporated into free-wheel invention ¶[0031], [0035] and the specific switch-off mechanism is not described or illustrated as part of elected Fig.1 The claim is not directly toward elected Fig.1.
Claim 16 recites “in particular both couplings between those differential or planetary gears (10;11;12;39), is neither accessible nor influenceable from the outside, and preferably internally at most via a pivotable and/or movable ring-shaped lunette, which cooperates with a region of a multi-cranked shaft of a toothed wheel of the coupling in question, which runs eccentrically to the axis of rotation of this toothed wheel.” The elected Fig.1 shows a single planetary gear set (10, 11, 12) and no additional secondary or tertiary planetary arrangement. In contrast, claim 16 describe an optional, additional feature can be incorporated into free-wheel invention ¶[0031], [0035]. Since the specific features from claim 16 is not described or illustrated as part of elected Fig.1 The claim is not directly toward elected Fig.1.
Applicant's election with traverse of in the reply filed on 10/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
1-Applicant argued “Miller only discloses a five speed transmission with fixed gear ratio” and therefore cannot be a freewheel, see page 10 of remarks.
In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim does not require any overrunning, or unidirectional clutching. The claim merely uses the preamble term “freewheel mechanism” but the body of the claim defines the invention entirely in the structural terms which is arrangement of two planetary gears/differentials on common shaft. A preamble limitation that does not provide essential structure or is not relied upon in the body is not limiting (see MPEP§ 2111.02 Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, even if Miller does not perform “freewheeling” function behavior, Miller still discloses structural planetary gear configuration recited in the claim. In other words, all common structural aspects that are positive limitations of the claims are taught by Miller.
2-Applicant argued “Asada is also fixed-ratio transmission and therefore does not disclose a freewheel mechanism, see page 10 of remarks.
In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim does not require any overrunning , or unidirectional clutching. The claim merely uses the preamble term “freewheel mechanism” but the body of the claim defines the invention entirely in the structural terms which is arrangement of two planetary gears/differentials on common shaft. A preamble limitation that does not provide essential structure or is not relied upon in the body is not limiting (see MPEP§ 2111.02 Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Secondly, examiner relies on Asada to teach a housing (10) accommodates planetary gears, and common shaft pivotally supported at both ends within the housing. Applicant has not identified any teaching away of the principle of operation. The modification is predictable to protect the internal components from debris and support the common shaft from prevent deflection or sagging.
3-Applicant argued that claimed invention is novel because it refers to “freewheel mechanism” which is not taught or suggested by prior art, see pages 10-11 of remarks.
In response to this argument, examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim never recites any functional requirement relate to overrunning, unidirectional clutching. The claim labels the mechanism “freewheel mechanism” but the body recites only planetary gear arrangement and common shaft mounting. Thereof, examiner relies on structural disclosure, not functional behavior. Secondly, a preamble limitation that does not provide essential structure or is not relied upon in the body is not limiting (see MPEP§ 2111.02 Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Thereof, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “4(6) ; 5(6); 24(6) ; 28(6) ; 40(6) -Fig.6; 42(13) ; 43(13) ; 44(13)-Fig.13 ; 45(14) -Fig.14; 46(15) -Fig.15; 44(16)-Fig.16 ” .
Reference number “3” has been used to designate both “front side of housing”, see ¶[0069] of USPGPUB version and “central shaft” ¶[0067]; “central axis” ¶0071] of USPGPUB version.
Note: The specification is replete with inconsistent reference numbers and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because
Reference number “39” is designate to “differential gear”; however, reference number “39” does not point at any gear structure. In addition, it is unclear in the drawings which elements are meshing with one another, rotating integrally with one another, or merely support on in a rotatable manner one another. Because details, such as bearings or teeth are not illustrated, and the drawings are not shown in a traditional manner for planetary gearsets, the arrangement is unclear. For example, the drawings imply that gear 25 pivots up and down between 15 and 25 however insufficient space is illustrated between these gears and no face teeth are illustrated that would confirm this understanding. In addition is 23 integral with 24, for example face teeth on a face of 24 directed upward in FIG. 1? Also, does element 24 rotate with the center shaft and therefore also with element 26?
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “common rotational shaft which is pivotally mounted in the housing in the regions of its both ends, and which is coupled to one of the three coaxial rotating parts rotate”. The recitation lacks corresponding enabling disclosure in view of Wands factors: 1-Undue experimentation: The specification does not provide any details of any structure that “pivotally mounts” the shaft in the housing at both ends. 2-Amount of direction by inventor: the description does not explain what pivotally mounting means in the context of this mechanism, the geometry of the housing region that allowing the pivoting. The general definition of pivoting includes moving angularly, rather than circumferentially, relative to the main axis. 3-Existence of working examples: application provides no example of pivotal shaft mounting.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19-26 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.
Claim 1 recites “common rotational shaft which is pivotally mounted in the housing in the regions of its both ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “common rotational shaft which is coupled to one of the three coaxial rotating parts rotate, i.e. the orbital gear carrier or the planetary gear carrier or to one of the two rotating connections of the two differential or planetary gear units in such a way that it rotates along with that, while all other rotating parts of the differential or planetary gear units are pivotally mounted on the common continuous shaft”. The claim refers “one of the three coaxial rotating parts” but then lists four possible items after (1-orbital gear carrier; 2-planetary gear carrier; 3-rotating connection of a first differential/planetary gear; 4-rotating connection of second planetary gear/differential) so it is unclear which three parts constitute “three coaxial rotating parts” and which listed items correspond to those three rotating parts. Secondly, the phrase “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Lastly, “the orbital gear carrier or the planetary gear carrier” is unclear the orbital gear carrier or planetary gear carrier of the first or second planetary gear or differential.
Claim 2 recites “at least one orbital gear carrier or planetary gear carrier of the first or second differential or planetary gear is neither coupled nor integrated with the at least one input shaft nor with the at least one output shaft”. The specification does not have any special definition of the term “couple” or clearly define which configuration are covered, so this creates uncertainty in claim scope.
Claim 3 recites “a rotary connection of the first differential” it is unclear if “rotary connection is referring to one of two further rotary connection of first differential as recited in claim 1 or what is the rotary connection.
Claim 3 and 5 recites “the internal gear ring”. It is unclear if it referring to the internal gear ring of the first or second planetary gear/differential.
Claim 3 and 5 recites “the three rotary connections of the second differential”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the two mutually coupled rotary connections of the first and second differential or planetary gear which rotate at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation due to their coupling, are neither coupled nor integrated with the input shaft nor with the output shaft”. The claim does not define which two elements that are coupled, or what “mutually coupled” refers to. Secondly, the specification does not have any special definition of the term “couple” or clearly define which configuration are covered, so this creates uncertainty in claim scope.
Claim 7 recites “a fixed transmission ratio ü=ωA/ωE, so that the output speed ωA is: ωA= ü *ωE “. The claim does not define what ωA; ωE are. Both ωA, ωE are in parentheses in the claim 1, therefore, function merely as reference symbols. Under MPEP§ 608.01(m), such parenthetic reference numbers are not considered part of the claim and do not limit the claim subject matter. Secondly, the specification shows freewheel changes the effective ratio so it is whether “fixed” refers to gear ratio or operational ratio.
Claim 7 recites “as long as no external torque or counter-torque working in the opposite direction of rotation acts on the output shaft and/or on at least one rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear”. It is unclear since the phrase after “as long as” introduces a conditional state that produces the fixed ratio rather than a structural limitation of the claimed apparatus, making it unclear what apparatus is actually being claimed.
Claim 8 recites “in case of an external torque on the output shaft or on at least one rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear”. The claim defines operating behavior rather than reciting structural element, making it unclear what apparatus is actually being claimed.
Claim 10 recites “two different differential or planetary gears”. The specification fails to identify which “two different differential/planetary gear” are being reference in the claim. Claim 1 already recites a first and second differential/planetary gear, thereof, claim 9 creates uncertainty as whether these are reference to first and second planetary gears/differential of claim or to some other combination of differentials/planetary gears not previously recited.
Claim 10 recites “the coupled rotary connections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and secondary it is unclear a rotary connection is referring to “rotary connection” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “preferably in a symmetrical manner, i.e. in particular,”. The phrase “preferably”; “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites “wherein the third differential or planetary gear is preferably coupled to two rotary connections of the second differential or planetary gear, preferably in an asymmetrical manner, i.e. with the orbital pinion carrier or planetary gear carrier”. The phrase “preferably”; “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 14 recites “unaffected from the outside”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “outside” in the claim, secondly it is unclear what outside is referring to whether it is external torque or external component.
Claim 17 recites “the common shaft can be designed as an input shaft”. It is unclear an input as referring to one of the input shaft as claimed in claim 1 or different input shaft.
Claim 19 recites “possibly, a third input shaft, which rotates with its own input speed”. The term “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term is required or optional and it creates multiple possible scopes.
Claim 20 recites “possibly, the third input shaft”. The term “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the term is required or optional and it creates multiple possible scopes.
Claim 20 recites “the central shaft”; “the decentralized shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if “central shaft” and “decentralized shaft” is referring to “common shaft” or different shaft as recited in claim 1.
Claim 21 recites “for example added together or added in a weighted manner.” The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 24 recites “the central shafts”, “the same central shaft”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if “central shaft” is referring to “common shaft” or input shaft or different shaft as recited in claim 1.
Claim 24 recites “hollow gears” it is unclear if hollow gear is referring to internal gear ring as recited in claim 1 or different gear.
Claim 26 recites “the drive train”; “the drive motor”; “the wheels”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Note: The application contains numerous typo errors and unclear terminology. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner has made effort to interpret the claims in light of the specification (see rejections below)
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 17, 19, 21-23, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KAMA (EP3073149 cited from IDS)
KAMA discloses (as the claims are best understood):
Claim 1: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2-3), comprising:
a) at least one input shaft (2) rotating at an input speed (ωE);
b) at least one output shaft (3) rotating at an output speed (ωA);
c) a first differential (4) or planetary gear arranged therebetween, comprising at least one toothed orbital pinion or planetary wheel (e.g. top pinion gear of 30) rotatably mounted in a first orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (30), which meshes with two internal gear rings (31,32) at two further rotary connections of the first differential (4) or planetary gear, the rotational speeds (ω12, ω13) of which determine the rotational speed (ω 11) of the first orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (30) in the first differential or planetary gear (4);
d) a second differential (5) or planetary gear, comprising at least one toothed orbital pinion or planetary wheel (e.g. pinion gear of 34) rotatably mounted in a second orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (34), which meshes with two internal gear rings (38, 39) on two further rotary connections of the second differential (5) or planetary gear, the speeds (ω22, ω 23) of which determine the speed (ω21) of the second orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (34) in the second differential or planetary gear (5);
e) a housing (6) in which both or all of the differential (4,5) or planetary gears are accommodated; characterized in that
f) both or all differential or planetary gear units (4,5) are constructed with one single, common rotational shaft (10) which is pivotally mounted in the housing (6) in the regions of its both ends (as shown in Fig.2), and which is coupled to one (e.g. carrier 34, 30 rotates) of the three coaxial rotating parts rotate, i.e. the orbital gear carrier or the planetary gear carrier or to one of the two rotating connections of the two differential or planetary gear units in such a way that it rotates along with that, while all other rotating parts of the differential or planetary gear units are pivotally mounted on the common continuous shaft (Note: examiner treats the underline limitation as optional, since the phrase “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).)
Claim 2: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one orbital gear carrier or planetary gear carrier (30) of the first or second differential or planetary gear (4) is neither coupled nor integrated with the at least one input shaft (2) nor with the at least one output shaft (3) (Fig.2, carrier 30 is driven via gear 29 and not directly coupled either input shaft 2 or output shaft 3) .
Claim 3: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that a rotary connection (31-examiner interprets as one of two further rotary connections as recited in claim 1) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear, the internal gear ring (31) of which meshes with at least one orbital pinion or planetary wheel (e.g. pinion gear of 30) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear, is coupled to one (33-since 33 meshes with toothing on carrier 34 of second differential 5, see ¶[0075]) of the three rotary connections (33, 34, 38/39) of the second differential (5) or planetary gear in such a way that these two coupled rotary connections (31,33) rotate at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation (see Fig.2: gear 31, 33 are fixedly connected and rotate around the same shaft 10, so gears 31 and 33 rotate same speed and direction)
Claim 4: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that the two mutually coupled rotary connections (33,31) of the first and second differential or planetary gear (4,5), which rotate at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation due to their coupling, are neither coupled (e.g. directly connected) nor integrated with the input shaft (2) nor with the output shaft (3).
Claim 5: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that another rotary connection (31) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear, the internal gear ring (31) of which meshes with at least one orbital pinion or planetary wheel (e.g. pinion of 30) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear, is coupled to another one (34) of the three rotary connections (33,34,38/39) of the second differential (5) or planetary gear in such a way that these two mutually coupled rotary connections (31,34) rotate at opposed identical speeds (base on formula from ¶[0075] implies that ω21=- ω12, wherein ω21-speed of rotary connection 34 and ω12 is speed of rotary connection 31)
Claim 7. Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that it is set to a fixed transmission ratio ü=ωA/ωE, so that the output speed ωA is:
ωA= ü *ωE
as long as no external torque or counter-torque working in the opposite direction of rotation acts on the output shaft and/or on at least one rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear (see ¶[0083]).
Claim 8: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.3) according to claim 1, characterized in that in case of an external torque on the output shaft or on at least one rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear in the respective output direction of rotation, it applies:
׀ωA׀ >׀ ü *ωE׀ (¶[0083]).
Claim 10: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized by a second rotary coupling (4 and 5 is coupled via 33) between two different differential (4,5) or planetary gears such that the speeds of the coupled rotary connections (31,34) are oppositely identical (base on formula from ¶[0075] implies that speed of rotary connection 34 is oppositely identical to speed of rotary connection 31)
Claim 11: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that the input shaft (2) is coupled to (via 29) a first differential or planetary gear (4), preferably in a symmetrical manner, i.e. in particular, only to the orbital pinion carrier (30) or planetary gear carrier thereof (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional, since the phrase “preferably”; “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).).
Claim 14: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one (32) of the two rotary connections (31,32) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear coupled to the second differential (5) or planetary gear remains unaffected from the outside, so that its speed can adjust itself freely, in particular opposite to the other rotary connection (31) of the first differential (4) or planetary gear coupled to the second differential (5) or planetary gear (¶0013]. During freewheeling, their speeds becomes oppositely equal), if necessary, additionally to twice the speed of the first orbital or planetary gear carrier, if a co-torque working in the direction of rotation acts on the output shaft and/or on at least one rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear, so that under the influence of this co-torque the output speed can increase without the input speed being influenced thereby (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional).
Claim 17: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2-3) according to claim 1, characterized in that the common shaft (10) can be designed as an input shaft rotating at an input speed (as shaft 10 input torque to output shaft 3).
Claim 19: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2-3) according to claim 1, characterized by a second (11) and, possibly, a third input shaft, which rotates with its own input speed (in freewheel state, 3 becomes input) (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional).
Claim 22: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that the output shaft (3) rotating at an output speed is coupled to the second (5), 1 planetary gear.
Claim 21: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 19, characterized in that the input speeds of all input shafts (2, 10, 11) on or before the first differential or planetary gear (10;11;12. As shown in Fig.2, there are gears 29 and 30, they create gear ratio or adds weights, thereof, the inputs are effectively weighted by these gear ratio before they are summed within the differential.) are combined, for example added together or added in a weighted manner(examiner treats the underline limitation as optional).
Claim 23: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that the output shaft (3) is mounted eccentrically to the input shaft (2) (see Fig.2).
Claim 25: Freewheel mechanism (Fig.2) according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing (6) is rotationally symmetrical.
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.
Claim(s) 13, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAMA (EP3073149 cited from IDS)
Claim 13. KAMA (Fig.2-3) does not disclose the output shaft is coupled to a third differential or planetary gear, wherein the third differential or planetary gear is preferably coupled to two rotary connections of the second differential or planetary gear, preferably in an asymmetrical manner, i.e. with the orbital pinion carrier or planetary gear carrier thereof on the one hand and with a rotary connection of the second differential or planetary gear, the internal gear ring of which meshes with at least one toothed orbital pinion or planetary gear of the second differential or planetary gear.
KAMA teaches freewheel mechanism (Fig.5) having a third planetary or differential (42) is coupled to two rotary connections (38’,39’) of second differential (5’), preferably in an asymmetrical manner, i.e. with the orbital pinion carrier (34’) or planetary gear carrier thereof on the one hand and with a rotary connection (39’) of the second differential (5’) or planetary gear, the internal gear ring (39’) of which meshes with at least one toothed orbital pinion (e.g. pinion of 34’) or planetary gear of the second differential (5’) or planetary gear (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional, since the phrase “preferably”; “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the output coupling (3) of Fig.2 with the output coupling (3’) and add third differential (42) as taught by Fig.5 to achieve different gear ratio, different rotation direction. Since both Figs.2 and 5 describe interchangeable embodiments performing the same function such as adjusting output ratio, maintaining freewheel. Thereof, integrating Fig.5 into Fig.2’s structure would involve mere substitution of one known coupling for another, predictable and yielding no unexpected results.
Claim 26: KAMA (Fig.2) does not disclose the freewheel mechanism is engaged in the drive train in such a way that in overrun mode the freewheel function decouples the drive motor from the drive train to the wheels, and/or in such a way that it is engaged between the drive train and a flywheel, and/or in such a way that it is engaged between the drive train and a starter or between a flywheel and a starter.
KAMA teaches the freewheel mechanism (1, Fig.12) is engaged in the drive train (67) in such a way that in overrun mode the freewheel function decouples the drive motor (69, note: Figs.12-14: It could also be an electric motor, or a hybrid drive, see ¶[0151]) from the drive train (70) to the wheels (681
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement freewheel (1) of Fig.2 in a vehicle within the drivetrain environment as taught by Fig.12 to achieve fuel savings and coasting feature. This is a routine and obvious implementation for a known freewheel device into known environment for predictable purposes.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2827805 previously cited by examiner) in view of Asada (US 5087233 previously cited by examiner)
Claim 1: Miller discloses freewheel mechanism ( fig.1), comprising:
a) at least one input shaft (14) rotating at an input speed (rotational speed of shaft 14);
b) at least one output shaft (11) rotating at an output speed (rotational speed of shaft 11);
c) a first differential or planetary gear (16) arranged therebetween, comprising at least one toothed orbital pinion or planetary wheel (23, 27) rotatably mounted in a first orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (24), which meshes with two internal gear rings (18,28) at two further rotary connections of the first differential or planetary gear (16), the rotational speeds of which determine the rotational speed of the first orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (24) in the first differential or planetary gear (16);
d) a second differential or planetary gear (17), comprising at least one toothed orbital pinion or planetary wheel (34,37) rotatably mounted in a second orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (35), which meshes with two internal gear rings (33, 42) on two further rotary connections of the second differential or planetary gear (17), the speeds of which determine the speed of the second orbital gear or planetary gear carrier (35) in the second differential or planetary gear (17);
characterized in that
f) both or all differential or planetary gear units (16,17) are constructed with one single, common rotational shaft (12) which is coupled to one of the three coaxial rotating parts rotate (12 is coupled to carrier 24 which one of the three coaxial rotating parts), i.e. the orbital gear carrier or the planetary gear carrier (24) or to one of the two rotating connections of the two differential or planetary gear units (16) in such a way that it rotates along with that, while all other rotating parts of the differential or planetary gear units (16) are pivotally mounted on the common continuous shaft (12).(note: the phrase “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase “i.e.” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).)
Miller does not disclose a housing in which both or all of the differential or planetary gears are accommodated; and common rotational shaft which is pivotally mounted in the housing in the regions of its both ends.
Note: Miller’s common rotational shaft (12) is shown but not disclose as being supported at both axial ends by surrounding housing.
Asada teaches a transmission (Fig.1) having a housing (10) in which both planetary gears are accommodated (e.g. all planetary gears 40,60,80 are accommodated) are arranged coaxially around a common rotational shaft (24); the common rotational shaft (24) which is pivotally mounted in the housing in the regions of its both ends (12, 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the housing in which both or all of the differential or planetary gears are accommodated; and common rotational shaft which is pivotally mounted in the housing in the regions of its both ends as taught by Asada in the transmission of Miller for the purpose of protecting the transmission from debris and keeping the shaft properly align and support, preventing sagging and deflection under load. Since both Miller and Asada disclose coaxial arrangement of planetary gears. Incorporating Asada’s shaft support into Miller’s coaxial structure requires no substantial redesign and results in predictable performance improvements.
The combined structure of Miller and Asada would be: a transmission composed of Miller’s two planetary gearset (16, 17) both mounted concentrically around a single long shaft (12), with bearings (12,14) supported and mounted in Asada’s housing (12).
Claim 2: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that at least one orbital gear carrier or planetary gear carrier (24) of the first (16) or second differential or planetary gear is neither coupled nor integrated with the at least one input shaft (14) nor with the at least one output shaft (11).
Claim 3: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that a rotary connection of the first differential or planetary gear (16),
the internal gear ring (18) of which meshes with at least one orbital pinion or planetary wheel (23) of the first differential (16) or planetary gear, is coupled to one (33) of the three rotary connections (33, 42, 35) of the second differential (17) or planetary gear in such a way that these two coupled rotary connections (33, 35) rotate at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation.
Claim 4: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the two mutually coupled rotary connections (24,33) of the first and second differential (16,17) or planetary gear, which rotate at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation due to their coupling, are neither coupled nor integrated with the input shaft (14) nor with the output shaft (11) (carrier 24 is not directly couple to input shaft 14 or output shaft 11, carrier 24 rotates at a speed determined by interaction between sun 17 and ring 18; similarly, ring 33 connects to intermediate shaft 12 to carrier 24, so ring 33 rotates at the same speed carrier 33 and ring 33 is not directly couple to either input shaft 14 or output shaft 11).
Claim 11: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the input shaft (14) is coupled to a first differential (16) or planetary gear, preferably in a symmetrical manner, i.e. in particular, only to the orbital pinion carrier or planetary gear carrier thereof (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional, since the phrase “preferably”; “i.e.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).).
Claim 17: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the common shaft (12) can be designed as an input shaft (12 as input shaft since it input torque to second planetary gearset 17) rotating at an input speed .
Claim 19: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized by a second (43. Note: drum 43 is elongate, cylindrical body, torque carrying, rotatable member arranged along rotational axis. Thereof, under BRI, element 43 constitutes a shaft. Applicant does not have any special definition of the term “shaft”, thereof, the term “shaft” is not limited to a solid bars.) and, possibly, a third input shaft , which rotates with its own input speed (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional, since the term “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.).
Claim 20: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 19, characterized in that the second (46) and, possibly, the third input shaft (13;14) is arranged decentrally to the central shaft (12) in a front face (e.g. any surface of housing 10) of the housing (10-Asada), or radially to the decentralized shaft in a lateral face of the housing (examiner treats the underline limitation as optional because it is “or” and limitation following after “possibly”. Since the term “possibly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.).
Claim 22: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the output shaft (11) rotating at an output speed is coupled to the second (17), 1.
Claim 24: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the sun (25, 38) and hollow gears (examiner interprets hollow gear as internal gear rings: 18, 28, 33, 42) and planetary wheel carriers (24,35) of all planetary gears (16,17) as well as the central shafts (14,12,11) and orbital pinion carriers (24,35) of all differential gears (16,17) rotate around the same central shaft (12/11/14-all components rotate around common axis defined by coaxial shaft assembly 11/12/14) of the freewheel mechanism (Fig.1).
Claim 25: Miller as modified by Asada discloses freewheel mechanism (Fig.1-Miller) according to claim 1, characterized in that the housing (10-Asada) is rotationally symmetrical.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wige (US 20030171184 A1) discloses dual input differential planetary gear transmission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655A
/STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
1 The strikeout limitation is “or” limitation; thus the prior art does not require to satisfy the strikeout limitation to be applicable.