DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 10 – 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemppainen (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0303039 in view of Huang (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0145084).
As to claim 10, Kemppainen teaches a jack assembly (abstract), comprising: a telescoping body (figure 2, elements 24 and 26 being the ‘telescoping body’; paragraph 40); a jackscrew adapted to extend and retract the telescoping body (figure 5, element 67 being the ‘jackscrew’; paragraph 41); and a drive train adapted to drive the jackscrew, the drive train including a first drive shaft adapted for engaging a handle (figure 3, element 54 being the ‘first drive shaft’; paragraph 41) and a second drive shaft adapted for engaging a power drill (figure 3, element 40 being the ‘second drive shaft’; paragraph 41). Examiner first recognizes that Kemppainen teaches the ‘first drive shaft’ as connecting to a ‘landing leg assembly’ (figure 3, element 54, paragraph 41), rather than a ‘handle.’ However, it is the position of the Examiner that the ‘first drive shaft’ of Kemppainen is also configured to connect to a handle, in the same manner that Kemppainen teaches the ‘second drive shaft’ connects to a handle (figure 3, elements 54 and 40; paragraph 41).
However, Kemppainen does not teach the second drive shaft including a torque limiter. Huang teaches a jack assembly (abstract), comprising: a telescoping body (figure 1, element 102 being the ‘telescoping body’; paragraph 33); a jackscrew adapted to extend and retract the telescoping body (figures 4 and 8, element 295 being the ‘jackscrew’; paragraph 37); and a drive train adapted to drive the jackscrew, the drive train including a drive shaft adapted for engaging an electric motor (figure 4, element 11 being the ‘drive shaft’; paragraphs 34 and 37). Huang further teaches that the drive shaft includes a torque limiter (figure 4, elements 241, 24, 242, 243, 25, 251, 26, and 27 being the ‘torque limiter’; paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the second drive shaft of Kemppainen with the torque limiter of Huang, because Huang teaches that use of a torque limiter provides the benefit of protecting the jack assembly in the event of the electric motor supplies a torque overload to the drive shaft (paragraphs 6 – 8 and 44).
As to claim 11, Kemppainen teaches a gear reduction section between the first drive shaft and the second drive shaft (figures 3 – 5, element 38 being the ‘gear reduction section’; paragraph 41).
As to claim 12, Kemppainen teaches that the gear reduction section includes a compound gear carried on an intermediate shaft (figures 3 – 5, element 50 being the ‘compound gear’ and element 58 being the ‘intermediate shaft’; paragraph 41).
As to claim 13, Huang teaches that the torque limiter and a gear reduction section are contained in a gear box housing supported by the telescoping body (figure 4, elements 21 and 22 being the ‘gear body housing’; paragraphs 34 – 35, wherein the ‘retardation mechanism’ is the ‘gear reduction section’). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to house the torque limiter and gear reduction section of Kemppainen in a gear box housing, as taught by Huang, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that providing a gear box housing to contain the gear reduction section and torque limiter would provide the benefit of allowing easy access to the gear reduction section and torque limiter for the purposes of maintenance and replacement or repair.
As to claim 15, Huang teaches that the torque limiter is a slip clutch (figure 4, elements 241, 24, 242, 243, 25, 251, 26, and 27; paragraph 42).
As to claim 16, the discussion of claim 12 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 17, the discussion of claim 13 is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 10 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jasper (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0238957) in view of Huang.
As to claim 10, Jasper teaches a jack assembly (abstract), comprising: a telescoping body (figure 2, elements 24 and 26 being the ‘telescoping body’; paragraph 25); a jackscrew adapted to extend and retract the telescoping body (figures 4 – 6, element 92 being the ‘jackscrew’; paragraphs 26 - 27). Examiner notes that the ‘driveshaft’ (element 92) of Jasper may reasonably be considered to be a ‘jackscrew’ because Jasper expressly teaches the ‘driveshaft’ being threaded (figures 4 – 6, element 92; paragraph 26). Jasper further teaches a drive train adapted to drive the jackscrew, the drive train including a first drive shaft adapted for engaging a handle (figure 2, element 66 being the ‘first drive shaft’; paragraphs 26 - 27) and a second drive shaft adapted for engaging a power drill (figure 2, element 44 being the ‘second drive shaft’; paragraphs 26 - 27). Examiner notes that this can be found because Jasper teaches that either the ‘first drive shaft’ or ‘second drive shaft’ may be rotated via either manually, with an attached handle, or electrically, with an attached electric motor (figure 2, elements 66 and 44; paragraph 26).
However, Jasper does not teach the second drive shaft including a torque limiter. Huang teaches a jack assembly (abstract), comprising: a telescoping body (figure 1, element 102 being the ‘telescoping body’; paragraph 33); a jackscrew adapted to extend and retract the telescoping body (figures 4 and 8, element 295 being the ‘jackscrew’; paragraph 37); and a drive train adapted to drive the jackscrew, the drive train including a drive shaft adapted for engaging an electric motor (figure 4, element 11 being the ‘drive shaft’; paragraphs 34 and 37). Huang further teaches that the drive shaft includes a torque limiter (figure 4, elements 241, 24, 242, 243, 25, 251, 26, and 27 being the ‘torque limiter’; paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the second drive shaft of Jasper with the torque limiter of Huang, because Huang teaches that use of a torque limiter provides the benefit of protecting the jack assembly in the event of the electric motor supplies a torque overload to the drive shaft (paragraphs 6 – 8 and 44).
As to claim 11, Jasper teaches a gear reduction section between the first drive shaft and the second drive shaft (figure 3, element 54 being the ‘gear reduction section’; paragraph 26).
As to claim 12, Jasper teaches that the gear reduction section includes a compound gear carried on an intermediate shaft (figures 3, element 56 being the ‘compound gear’; paragraph 26).
As to claim 13, Jasper teaches that the gear reduction section is contained in a gear box housing supported by the telescoping body (figures 2 and 3, elements 70 and 72 being the ‘gear box housing’; paragraph 26).
As to claim 14, Jasper further teaches that the first and second drive shafts extend through the gear box housing (figures 2, 3, 8, and 9, elements 66, 44, 70, and 72) and the first drive shaft further extends into the telescoping body wherein an output gear is carried on the first drive shaft to drive the jackscrew through engaging an input gear (figure 3, element 64 being the ‘output gear,’ either of elements 42 and 48 being the ‘input gear,’ and elements 66 and 26; paragraphs 26 - 27).
As to claim 15, Huang teaches that the torque limiter is a slip clutch (figure 4, elements 241, 24, 242, 243, 25, 251, 26, and 27; paragraph 42).
As to claim 16, the discussion of claim 12 is incorporated herein.
As to claim 17, Jasper further teaches that the compound gear and intermediate shaft are contained in a gear box housing supported by the telescoping body (figures 2 and 3, elements 70 and 72 being the ‘gear box housing’; paragraph 26).
As to claim 18, the discussion of claims 1 and 14 are incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 5 – 8, that it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the jack assembly of Kemppainen with a torque limiter, as taught by Huang. This is because, Applicant argues, Kemppainen teaches the jack assembly being directed for ‘heavy-duty commercial trucks’ and, therefore, must be capable of handling high torque levels. Examiner disagrees. Examiner recognizes that the jack assembly of Kemppainen is configured for lifting heavier loads. However, the jack assembly of Huang is at least capable of lifting cars, so it also is capable of lifting relatively heavy loads. Furthermore, both Huang and Kemppainen teaches the ‘second drive shaft’ being rotated by an electrical motor (Huang, figure 2, element 11, paragraphs 34 and 37; Kemppainen, figure 2, element 40, paragraph 41). It is the position of the Examiner that because each of Huang and Kemppainen teaches rotating the ‘second drive shaft’ by an electrical motor, one skilled in the art would have found it obvious to provide the ‘second drive shaft’ of Kemppainen with a torque limiter, as taught by Huang, because Huang that use of a torque limiter provides the benefit of protecting the jack assembly in the event that the electric motor supplies a torque overload to the drive shaft (paragraphs 6 – 8 and 44). While the jack assembly of Kemppainen may be configured for high loads and higher torque inputs than the jack assembly of Huang, one skilled in the art still would have found the use of a torque limiter to be beneficial for the reasons taught by Huang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights