DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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 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.
Drawings
The figures contain alphanumeric characters that appear to be handwritten. The drawings are objected to because every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined in accordance with 37 CFR §1.84(l).
The drawings are objected to because the sectional views of Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 must use hatching in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84 to indicate section portions of an object. See MPEP 608.02.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (U.S. Patent No. 1,824,440 A; “Meyer”).
Meyer discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
An adapter (depicted in FIG. 1 between housing portions A and C) for connecting an engine (pg. 1, ll. 78-79, “engine crankshaft 11”) with a gearbox, the adapter comprising:
a casing having a first casing portion (B) connected to a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32) and defining a flywheel cavity (FIG. 1 depicts flywheel 20 located in an inner space defined by the first and second casing portions e.g. at 17, B), and
a flywheel (20, 21) contained within the flywheel cavity (depicted in FIG. 1);
whereby the second casing portion is configured to connect to the engine (via bolt 18 as seen in FIG. 1) and the first casing portion is configured to connect to the gearbox (via bolt 31 as seen in FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 26:
An adapter (depicted in FIG. 1 between housing portions A and C) for connecting an engine (pg. 1, ll. 78-79, “engine crankshaft 11”) for connecting an engine (at A) with a gearbox (at C), the adapter comprising:
a casing having a first casing portion (B) connected to a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32) and defining a flywheel cavity (FIG. 1 depicts flywheel 20 located in an inner space defined by the first and second casing portions e.g. at 17, B), and
a flywheel (20, 21) contained within the flywheel cavity (depicted in FIG. 1);
whereby the second casing portion is configured to connect to the engine (via bolt 18 as seen in FIG. 1) and the first casing portion is configured to connect to the gearbox (via bolt 31 as seen in FIG. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Jennings et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,194,373 A; “Jennings”).
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Meyer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, see above, further including a flywheel hub (portion 21) connected to the flywheel and extending towards a gearbox-side opening of the first casing portion (portion 21 extends rightward toward the gearbox opening of casing C as depicted in FIG. 1). However, it does not expressly disclose the hub extending from the gearbox-side opening.
Jennings teaches a hub (12, 38) extending from a gearbox-side opening (col. 3, ll. 34-36, “The driven shaft is located within a tube 38 which fits the automatic transmission (not shown)” i.e. tube 38 extends into the automatic transmission i.e. from a gearbox-side opening) as a part of a configuration that provides shock isolation between the engine and gearbox (col. 1, ll. 5-10; Jenning’s hub includes a flange portion at 12, base at 38, and rubber coupling at 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Meyer such that the hub extends from the gearbox-side opening, as taught by Jennings, as a part of a configuration that provides shock isolation between the engine and gearbox.
Meyer as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 4:
The adapter of claim 1 where the first casing portion and the second casing portion are made of metal (pg. 1, ll. 99-100, “For housing the flywheel I have provided a housing member B formed of a metal stamping”), the flywheel hub includes a flange portion (at 12 in FIG. 3 in Jennings) connected to the flywheel and an integral base portion (22 in FIG. 3) connected to the rubber coupling (FIG. 3 in Jennings depict the rubber coupling 28 connected to base portion 22), the flange portion having a maximum flange diameter (outer circumferential surface near reference number 14 in FIG. 3 in Jennings), the base portion having a maximum base diameter (outer circumferential surface near reference number 14 in FIG. 3 in Jennings), the maximum flange diameter being greater than the maximum hub diameter (FIG. 3 in Jennings reasonably depicts/discloses the diameter of flange portion 12 being greater than that of base portion 38; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 5:
The adapter of claim 4 where the base portion extends outward from the casing (col. 3, ll. 34-36 in Jennings describing that the base portion 38 extends such that it “fits the automatic transmission” i.e. outward from the casing into the transmission) while the flange portion is positioned within the cavity (FIG. 1 depicts the flange portion e.g. at 20 disposed in the cavity).
Regarding claim 6:
The adapter of claim 1 where the flywheel has a flywheel center opening having a first diameter (FIG. 2-3 in Jennings depict an opening 18 of flywheel portion 12 that has a diameter large enough to accommodate e.g. elastic member 28 and base portion 22), the base portion has a hub center opening having a second diameter (34 in FIG. 3 in Jennings depict a diameter large enough to accommodate the shaft 36), the first diameter being greater than second diameter (FIG. 3 depicts opening 18 being radially larger than opening 34). However, Meyers as modified above does not expressly disclose the first diameter being at least twice as great as the second diameter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the first diameter being at least twice as great as the second diameter as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that providing the first diameter being at least twice as great as the second diameter would cause the claimed invention performs any differently than that of the prior art device. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Regarding claim 8:
The adapter of claim 1 where the first casing portion (pg. 1, ll. 99-100, “For housing the flywheel I have provided a housing member B formed of a metal stamping”), the first casing portion fastened to the second casing portion with bolts (18; FIG. 1). Although Meyer characterizes the first casing portion e.g. portion 17 as a “plate” and mentions other housing parts as being made from metal (see claims 1, 2, and 4), it does not expressly disclose that the second casing portion is made from metal. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Meyer such that its second casing portion is made from metal, since it has been held to be 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Fisher et al. (GB 1584363 A; “Fisher”).
Regarding claim 9, Meyer discloses all the limitations of claim 1, see above, including that the adapter (e.g. at B, 13, 14, 17, 32) is connected to the gearbox at the first casing portion (at C via bolts 31) and connected to an engine at the second casing portion (via bolts 18). However, it does not expressly disclose the engine being a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine.
Fisher teaches an engine being a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine (pg. 2, ll. 55-58, “The power plant comprises a 30 horsepower two-cylinder four-stroke petrol engine 2 designed for motor-bicycle use and connected to drive a self-feathering propeller 3”) as it is a readily available engine type that uses readily available fuel (pg. 1, ll. 24-40; pg. 2, ll. 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Meyer such that the engine is a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine, as taught by Fisher, as it is a readily available engine type that uses readily available fuel.
Claim(s) 3, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Jennings, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Takashima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,050,446 A; “Takashima”).
Regarding claim 3, Meyer as modified above teaches the adapter of claim 2, see above, including that the engine drive shaft (11) extends from the engine into the adapter (FIG. 1 depicts crankshaft 11 extending from the engine/engine housing A into the internal cavity axially aligned with housing portion B) and where the flywheel hub is configured to extend from the casing into the gearbox (col. 3, ll. 34-36 in Jennings, see above) but does not expressly disclose a that the flywheel hub includes a tapered bore and is secured with a bolt to an engine drive shaft to connect with a rubber coupling of the gearbox.
Takashima teaches a flywheel hub includes a tapered bore (FIG. 2 depicts bore at 16 reducing in diameter i.e. tapered) and is secured with a bolt (17) to an engine drive shaft (11) to connect with an elastic coupling (28, 29; FIG. 2) of a gearbox (col. 2, ll. 15-34, “transmission device”) as a particular configuration to connect with the engine that provides torsional and vibration damping characteristics (col. 2, ll. 15-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Meyer such that the flywheel hub includes a tapered bore and is secured with a bolt to an engine drive shaft to connect with a elastic coupling of the gearbox, as taught by Takashima, as a particular configuration to connect with the engine that provides torsional and vibration damping characteristics. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastic coupling as a rubber coupling, since it has been held to be 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. Also in certain circumstances where appropriate, an examiner may take official notice of facts not in the record or rely on "common knowledge" in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2144.03. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner where the facts asserted to be well-known, or to be common knowledge in the art are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known. In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091, 165 USPQ 418, 420 (CCPA 1970). Here, the Examiner takes official notice that providing an elastic coupling as specifically a rubber coupling is instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the elastic coupling as a rubber coupling as such combination of elements are instantly and unquestionably well-known and common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 33:
A process for assembling a drive system, the process comprising:
connecting a first casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32) of an adapter to an engine of the drive system (via bolts 18; pg. 2, ll. 10-17), an output drive (end of crankshaft 11) powered by the engine and extending through the first casing portion (depicted in FIG. 1); connecting a flywheel hub (at 16 in Takashima) to the output drive at a flywheel hub opening of the flywheel hub (depicted in FIG. 2 in Takashima), the flywheel hub connected to a flywheel (e.g. hub portion on which bores at 16 and 24 are formed are connected to flywheel portions 19, 23 in FIG. 2 in Takashima); and connecting a second casing portion of the adapter to the first casing portion (via bolts 18 in FIG. 1), the flywheel hub extending through a gearbox side opening of the second casing portion (col. 3, ll. 34-36 in Jennings).
Regarding claim 34:
The process of claim 33 further comprising connecting a rubber coupling to the flywheel hub (28 in Jennings; 28 in Takashima).
Regarding claim 35:
The process of claim 34 further comprising connecting a coupling flange (26, 27 in Takashima) to the rubber coupling, the coupling flange powering an output drive of a gearbox (elements 26, 27 in Takashima transmit motion to the output drive 13 of transmission).
Regarding claim 36:
The process of claim 33 further comprising connecting a gearbox (at C) to the second casing portion of the adapter (via bolts 31).
Regarding claim 37:
The process of claim 33 where the first casing portion is connected to the engine prior to connecting the flywheel hub to the output drive (pg. 2, ll. 10-34, “The housing B is secured in position by fasteners 25 passing through the flange 22 and plate 17, certain of the studs 18, as shown in Figs. 1 and 3, preferably passing through the flange 22 and plate 17 whereby the housing B is secured to both the plate 17 and the engine body A. The housing B may have a depression for accommodating and housing the usual starter mechanism, the starter pinion being diagrammatically illustrated at 2. The annular flange 23 provides a pilot for receiving and lining up the transmission housing C. Thus the latter housing is provided with the annular pilot 28 adapted to be positioned within the opening provided by the flywheel housing flange 23, a transmission housing flange 29 having contact with the rear annular face of flange 23. For securing the housings B and C together where so the housing is formed of sheet metal I have provided an annulus 30 preferably welded to the front annular face of flange 23 and formed with threaded openings for receiving the studs 31.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Hayakawa (U.S. Patent No. 4,506,561 A; “Hayakawa”).
Regarding claim 7, Meyer discloses the limitations of claim 1, see above, further including that the first casing portion is made of metal (pg. 1, ll. 98-100, “formed of a metal stamping”). However, it does not expressly disclose the first casing portion including a plurality of internal ribs extending from at least one footing to at least one node of the first casing portion.
Hayakawa teaches a first casing portion (12) including a plurality of internal ribs (18) extending from at least one footing (portion at reference number 10 in FIG. 4) to at least one node of the first casing portion (portion of casing 12 that surrounds holes 22 as seen in FIG. 4-5) as a means to provide reinforcement to the first casing (col. 2, ll. 45-49 “reinforcement ribs 16 and 18”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Meyer such that the first casing portion includes a plurality of internal ribs extending from at least one footing to at least one node of the first casing portion, as taught by Hayakawa, as a means to provide reinforcement to the first casing.The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that both Meyer and Hayakawa are drawn to analogous/similar structures i.e. casings for drive train components, and would therefore recognize that modifying Meyer in view of the known technique taught in Hayakawa as described supra would, with reasonable predictability, result in Meyer’s first casing B being formed with reinforcement ribs like that of ribs 18 in Hayakawa.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 18, 19, 28, 31, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (WO 2024/196414 A1; “George”) in view of Meyer and Fisher et al. (GB 1584363 A; “Fisher”).
George discloses:
Regarding claim 16:
A gyroplane (depicted in FIG. 1), comprising:
a pilot section having controls for operation of the gyroplane (9; ¶ 25);
a mast (2; FIG. 1) configured to position an unpowered free rotation rotor above the pilot section (¶ 25, “But the rotor in a conventional gyroplane is not driven directly by the engine, Instead, a propeller drives the craft forward, and air steaming upward through the disk produces autorotation of the rotor blades that in turn produces 1”);
a propeller (1; FIG. 1);
an engine (5) configured to power the propeller for forward thrust of the gyroplane (¶ 43, “An Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) can be employed to drive the propeller for horizontal propulsion in cruise;”); and
a gearbox (36) that transfers power from the engine to the propeller (FIG. 3 depicts a gearbox 36 transferring power from engine 5 to the rotor 27 via at least elements 37-39).
George does not expressly disclose the engine being a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine.
Fisher teaches an engine being a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine (pg. 2, ll. 55-58, “The power plant comprises a 30 horsepower two-cylinder four-stroke petrol engine 2 designed for motor-bicycle use and connected to drive a self-feathering propeller 3”) as it is a readily available engine type that uses readily available fuel (pg. 1, ll. 24-40; pg. 2, ll. 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, George such that the engine is a 2-cylinder 4 stroke engine, as taught by Fisher, as it is a readily available engine type that uses readily available fuel.
George does not expressly disclose an adapter which together with the gearbox transfers power from the engine.
Meyer teaches an adapter (FIG. 1 depicting an adapter that has housing portions B, 14, 15, 17, 32 that house a flywheel 20, 21) which together with a gearbox (at C; FIG. 1) transfers power from the engine (FIG. 1 depicts engine crankshaft 11 operatively connected to the adapter via flywheel 20, 21 which in turn drives an transmission input shaft which is partially drawn therein) to implement a flywheel with starter gear therebetween per customary construction (pg. 1, ll. 15-36, “Where, as in the customary construction, the flywheel is assembled within the housing after attachment of the housing to the engine block, the housing must necessarily be provided with a rear pilot opening of sufficient diameter to clear the flywheel and starter gear periphery”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, George to include an adapter which together with the gearbox transfers power from the engine, as taught by Meyer, to implement a flywheel with starter gear therebetween per customary construction.
George as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 17:
The gyroplane of claim 16 where the adapter includes a first casing portion (B in Meyer) connected to the gearbox (depicted in FIG. 1 in Meyer) and a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32 in Meyer) connected to the engine (depicted in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the casing defining a cavity (e.g. inside of housing portion B in FIG. 1 in Meyer) for housing a flywheel (20, 21 in Meyer) powered by the engine (via engine crankshaft 11, see in FIG. 1 in Meyer)
Regarding claim 18:
The gyroplane of claim 16 where the adapter includes a flywheel (20, 21 in Meyer) contained within a casing having a first casing portion (B in Meyer) and a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32 in Meyer), the first casing portion connected to the gearbox (via bolts 31 in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the second casing portion connected to the engine (via bolts 18 in FIG. 1 in Meyer).
Regarding claim 19:
The gyroplane of claim 18 where the flywheel has a diameter (FIG. 1 in Meyer depicts flywheel 20, 21 having a diameter that is greater than the vertical span of the crankshaft 1), the engine includes an engine block in part defining the cylinders (Fisher’s “two-cylinder four-stroke petrol engine” inherently has an engine block insofar as it requires a housing i.e. block to house the cylinders and pistons; if it did not have a block/housing, then the cylinders/pistons would have no support/base structure thereby rendering the engine inoperable) and having a maximum block height (vertical dimension of said block/housing in the same view as that seen in FIG. 1in Meyer).
However, George as modified above does not expressly disclose that the diameter of the flywheel is greater than the maximum block height. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the diameter of the flywheel is greater than the maximum block height as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that providing the diameter of the flywheel as being greater than the maximum block height would cause the claimed invention to perform any differently than that of the prior art device. For example, paragraph [0038] in the instant specification provides a literal basis for the limitation and states that generally that such a “large diameter flywheel 24 was not previously possible for use within a typical gearbox housing or for use within an engine block or engine housing given the large size constrains,” but this appears to be more of an attribute of having the adapter per se and does not appear to relate to or explain how specifically the flywheel having a larger diameter than the engine block would cause the claimed invention to perform in a particular way i.e. in a manner different from the prior art. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
Regarding claim 28:
A drive system, comprising:
an engine having an engine block (Fisher’s “two-cylinder four-stroke petrol engine” inherently has an engine block insofar as it requires a housing i.e. block to house the cylinders and pistons; if it did not have a block/housing, then the cylinders/pistons would have no support/base structure thereby rendering the engine inoperable);
a gearbox (36) having an output drive (25) powered by the engine (engine 5 drives shaft 25 via at least intermediate structure 34-39); and an adapter (FIG. 1 depicting an adapter that has housing portions B, 14, 15, 17, 32 that house a flywheel 20, 21) having a first casing portion (B in Meyer) connected to a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32 in Meyer) and defining a flywheel cavity (FIG. 1 in Meyer depicts flywheel 20 located in an inner space defined by the first and second casing portions e.g. at 17, B), a flywheel contained within the flywheel cavity (depicted in FIG. 1 in Meyer); the first casing portion connected to the gearbox (via bolt 31 as seen in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the second casing portion connected to the engine (via bolt 18 as seen in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the flywheel having a diameter greater than a total height of the engine block (see rejection to claim 19 above); whereby activation of the engine powers the output drive (¶ 43, 46; FIG. 3 depicts engine 5 operatively connected to and thereby activating/driving driven shaft 35 via at least intermediate structure 36, 37, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 31:
A drive system, comprising:
an engine (Fisher’s “two-cylinder four-stroke petrol engine”);
a gearbox (36) having a driven gear (33) powered by the engine (powered by engine 5), the driven gear having a maximum diameter (depicted in FIG. 3); and
having an output drive (25) powered by the engine (engine 5 drives shaft 25 via at least intermediate structure 34-39); and
an adapter (FIG. 1 depicting an adapter that has housing portions B, 14, 15, 17, 32 that house a flywheel 20, 21) having a first casing portion (B in Meyer) connected to a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32 in Meyer) and defining a flywheel cavity (FIG. 1 in Meyer depicts flywheel 20 located in an inner space defined by the first and second casing portions e.g. at 17, B), a flywheel contained within the flywheel cavity (depicted in FIG. 1 in Meyer); the first casing portion connected to the gearbox (via bolt 31 as seen in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the second casing portion connected to the engine (via bolt 18 as seen in FIG. 1 in Meyer), the flywheel having a diameter greater than a total height of the engine block (see rejection to claim 19 above); whereby activation of the engine powers the output drive (¶ 43, 46; FIG. 3 depicts engine 5 operatively connected to and thereby activating/driving driven shaft 35 via at least intermediate structure 36, 37, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 32:
The drive system of claim 31 further comprising a flywheel hub (at 38 in Jennings) connected to the flywheel (depicted in FIG. 3 in Jennings) and extending outward from a gearbox-side opening of the first casing portion (col. 3, ll. 34-36 in Jennings, “The driven shaft is located within a tube 38 which fits the automatic transmission (not shown)” i.e. tube 38 extends into the automatic transmission i.e. outward from the gearbox opening).
Claim(s) 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Meyer and Fisher, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Jennings et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,194,373 A; “Jennings”).
Regarding claims 20, 21 and 23, George as modified above teaches the limitations of claim 16, see above, including that the flywheel has a diameter (FIG. 1 in Meyer, see the radial dimension of flywheel 20, 21) and flywheel hub (portion 20 in FIG. 1 in Meyer) connected to the flywheel contained within the adapter (FIG. 1 in Meyer depicts hub portion at 20 disposed within housing e.g. within housing portion B) and extending towards a gearbox-side opening of the first casing portion (portion 21 extends rightward toward the gearbox opening of casing C as depicted in FIG. 1) but does not expressly disclose that the flywheel hub extending into the gearbox, the gearbox including a rubber coupling connected to the flywheel hub and having a maximum rubber coupling height, and the diameter being greater than twice the maximum rubber coupling height.
Jennings teaches a hub (12, 38) extending into the gearbox (col. 3, ll. 34-36, “The driven shaft is located within a tube 38 which fits the automatic transmission (not shown)” i.e. tube 38 extends into the automatic transmission i.e. gearbox), the gearbox including a rubber coupling connected to the flywheel hub (col. 1, ll. 5-10; Jenning’s hub includes a flange portion at 12, base at 38, and rubber coupling at 28) and having a maximum rubber coupling height (radially outermost dimension of rubber element 28 as seen in FIG. 2-3), and a diameter of the flywheel (e.g. at 15) being greater than the maximum rubber coupling height (FIG. 2-3 depicts the flywheel 15 as having a larger diameter than that of rubber element 28; see MPEP § 2125) as a part of a configuration that provides shock isolation between the engine and gearbox (col. 1, ll. 5-10; Jenning’s hub includes a flange portion at 12, base at 38, and rubber coupling at 28).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Meyer such that the flywheel hub extending into the gearbox, the gearbox including a rubber coupling connected to the flywheel hub and having a maximum rubber coupling height, as taught by Jennings, as a part of a configuration that provides shock isolation between the engine and gearbox. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the diameter being greater than twice the maximum rubber coupling height as a matter of design choice because it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)( the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); see also MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, nowhere in the original disclosure does it disclose or suggest that providing the diameter of the flywheel as being greater than the maximum block height would cause the claimed invention to perform any differently than that of the prior art device. At best, paragraph [0038] in the instant specification recites that “large diameter flywheel 24 was not previously possible for use within a typical gearbox housing or for use within an engine block or engine housing given the large size constrains,” but this appears to be more of an attribute of having the adapter per se and does not appear to relate to or explain how specifically the flywheel having a diameter being greater than twice the maximum rubber coupling height would cause the claimed invention to perform in a particular way i.e. in a manner different from the prior art. As such, this limitation does not amount to a patentable difference.
George as modified above further teaches the following:
Regarding claim 24:
A method for powering a driven shaft (25; FIG. 3) of an apparatus (depicted in FIG. 1), the method comprising:
providing a driven shaft ( 25; FIG. 3) driven by an output drive (35; FIG. 3) of a gearbox (36; FIG. 3),
a coupling flange (34) connected to the output drive (depicted in FIG. 3), a rubber coupling (28 as depicted in FIG. 3 in Jennings) connected to the coupling flange (via driven shaft 35, driven shaft 36 in Jennings), a flywheel hub (38 in Jennings) connected to the rubber coupling (depicted in FIG. 3 in Jennings), the flywheel hub connected to a flywheel (15 in Jennings) and to an output shaft of an engine (crankshaft 11 in Meyer); and
activating the engine to power the driven shaft (¶ 43, 46; FIG. 3 depicts engine 5 operatively connected to and thereby activating/driving driven shaft 35 via at least intermediate structure 36, 37, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 25:
The method of claim 24 where the output drive activates a propeller gear (33; FIG. 3) to drive a propeller (30; FIG. 3) of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 29:
The drive system of claim 28 further comprising a flywheel hub (12, 38 in Jennings) connected to the flywheel and extending outward from a gearbox-side opening of the first casing portion (col. 3, ll. 34-36 in Jennings, “The driven shaft is located within a tube 38 which fits the automatic transmission (not shown)” i.e. tube 38 extends into the automatic transmission i.e. outward from the gearbox opening).
Claim(s) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Meyer, Fisher, and Jennings, as applied to claim 21 and 29 above, and further in view of Takashima et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,050,446 A; “Takashima”).
Regarding claim 22, George as modified above teaches the limitations of claim 21, see above, including that the engine drive shaft (11 in Meyer) extends from the engine into the adapter (FIG. 1 depicts crankshaft 11 extending from the engine/engine housing A into the internal cavity axially aligned with housing portion B) but does not expressly disclose a particular configuration for connecting the crankshaft to the flywheel i.e. that the flywheel hub includes a tapered bore configured to mate with a tapered engine drive shaft.
Takashima teaches a tapered bore (FIG. 2 depicts bore at 16 reducing in diameter i.e. tapered) configured to mate with a tapered engine shaft (shaft end at 16 is tapered as seen in FIG. 2) as a particular configuration to secure the engine shaft to the flywheel (col. 2, ll. 35-41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, George such that the flywheel hub includes a tapered bore configured to mate with a tapered engine drive shaft, as taught by Takashima, as a particular configuration to secure the engine shaft to the flywheel.
Regarding claim 10:
A system for powering a driven shaft (25), the system comprising:
an engine (5) having an engine drive shaft (11 in Meyer);
a flywheel (20, 21 in Meyer);
a gearbox (36) having an output drive shaft (35) configured to power the driven shaft (via flange 34_, the gearbox including a rubber coupling (28 in Jennings, Takashima); and
a flywheel hub (portion that defines bores at 16, 24 in Takashima) connected to the flywheel (portion at 19, 23 in Takashima), the flywheel hub connected to the rubber coupling (via elements 26, 27 in Takashima), and the flywheel hub connected to the engine drive shaft (via fastening elements 17, 18 in FIG. 2 in Takashima);
whereby activation of the engine powers the driven shaft (¶ 43, 46; FIG. 3 depicts engine 5 operatively connected to and thereby activating/driving driven shaft 35 via at least intermediate structure 36, 37, 38, 39).
Regarding claim 11:
The system of claim 10 where the flywheel hub includes a tapered bore (at 16 in FIG. 2 of Takashima) configured to receive the engine drive shaft at one side of the flywheel hub (depicted in FIG. 2 of Takashima) and where the rubber coupling is connected to the flywheel hub at an opposite side of the flywheel hub (rubber coupling 28 is located on the right-hand side whereas the engine drive shaft enters at the lefthand side, seen in FIG. 2 of Takashima).
Regarding claim 12:
The system of claim 10 further comprising a casing (13, 14, 17, 32, B; FIG. 1) having a first casing portion (B) connected to a second casing portion (13, 14, 17, 32) to define a flywheel cavity for containing the flywheel (FIG. 1 depicts flywheel 20 disposed inside the housing defined by 13, 14, 17, 32, B; FIG. 1), the first casing portion connected to the gearbox (via bolts 31; FIG. 1) and the second casing portion connected to the engine (via bolts 18; FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 13:
The system of claim 10 where the engine is a 2-cylinder, 4-stroke engine (pg. 2, ll. 55-58 in Fisher).
Regarding claim 14:
The system of claim 10 further comprising a propeller (27, 30) connected to the driven shaft (FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 15:
A gyroplane comprising a propeller (30) connected to the driven shaft of the system of claim 10 (depicted in FIG. 3), and further comprising a free rotation rotor (27; ¶ 15, “feely turning main rotor”).
Regarding claim 30:
The drive system of claim 29 where the flywheel hub is connected to an engine drive shaft extending from the engine into the adapter (FIG. 1 in Jennings depicts engine drive shaft 11 extending into the adapter e.g. partially axially spanning housing portion B) and is further connected to a rubber coupling (28 in Takashima). George as modified above does not expressly disclose the rubber coupling disposed within the gearbox. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, George such that the rubber coupling disposed within the gearbox because it has been held that the mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an unpatentable/obvious modification if such a modification would not have modified the operation of the device or yielded unexpected results. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). See MPEP § 2144.04. Here, the original disclosure does not disclose or suggest that the particular placement of the rubber coupling i.e. specifically the rubber coupling being within the gearbox affects the operation of the device or would yield unpredictable results. The original disclosure in paragraph [0007] provides a literal basis for the limitation but does not expound further on how it would affect the operation of the device or would yield unpredictable results. Because varying the placement of the rubber coupling e.g. within the gearbox versus within the adapter or partially in between would not modify the operation of the device or yield unexpected results, this limitation does not amount to patentable difference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656