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 .
Response to Arguments
a. In regards to the claim objection, Applicant submits the Office objected to claims 3-5 as containing informalities. By this Amendment, several claims are amended for clarity and to correct informalities. These amendments obviate the asserted claim objections. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the objection to claims 3-5 are
respectfully requested.
a. (Examiner’s response) Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3-5, & 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 3-5, & 7 has been withdrawn.
b. The Office rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art interpreting the claim language in light of the specification would be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the recited claim language. The specification explicitly defines the meaning of "in optical communication" in the context of this application. Specifically, paragraph [0020] of the as-filed specification states: "The through holes 122 and 124 are in optical communication with the inner bore 118, and together through holes 122, 124 and inner bore 118 define a first light passageway P1.
The specification further clarifies this meaning at paragraph [0026], which describes how "[t]he first light source 132 is configured to emit light towards one through hole in the pair of through holes 122, 124, e.g., through hole 122, such that the emitted light from the first light source 132 is able to enter and pass through the first light passageway P1, and be detected by the first light detector 134." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0026]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would therefore understand "in optical communication" to describe a structural relationship where the through holes and inner bore together form an optical path allowing light to pass through.
b. (Examiner’s response) Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes by definition optical communication is the method of transmitting information over distances in which the information is decoded. For instance, light signals that are interpreted into data or verbal interpretation would be interpreted as an optical communication. Examiner further notes the holes do not provide an interpretation of light itself but are simply surfaces that the light travels through as an optical passageway.
Examiner submits the first light source 132 is configured to emit light towards one through hole in the pair of through holes 122, 124, e.g., through hole 122, and pass through the first light passageway P1, and be detected by the first light detector 134, wherein the first light detector generates an output signal that is indicative of the improper locking.
Examiner notes the interaction between the light source and detector would be considered an optical communication since the detector can interpret the light from a light source into an output signal. However, claims are silent with regards to the light source and detector.
c. The Office rejected claims 1, 3 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 100488561). Applicants respectfully traverse this rejection. Claim 1 recites "a first hub at a first end of the main body, wherein the first hub comprises a first inner bore configured to receive a first shaft." Lee fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the recited claim language.
In Lee, the disk clutch (5) is a flat plate coupled to the tip of the rotation shaft (2). See Lee, paragraph [29]. The disk clutch (5) does not have an inner bore that receives a shaft. The structural relationship in Lee is fundamentally different from that recited in claim 1: the disk clutch of Lee is mounted on the shaft tip, whereas claim 1 recites a hub with a bore for receiving a shaft.
In Lee, holes 10 and 11 are formed at the inner and outer corners of the disk clutch (5) at different radial positions. See Lee, paragraph [32]. Holes 10 and 11 are not aligned with each other. Rather, hole 10 aligns with hole 12 on the pulley, and hole 11 aligns with hole 13 on the pulley. See Lee, paragraph [32], which states "the first hole (10) and the third hole (12) communicate with each other, and the second hole (11) and the fourth hole (13) communicate with each other." The holes in Lee pass through a flat disk axially, not through "opposite walls" of a hub structure as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 further recites "wherein the first through hole and the second through hole are in optical communication with the first inner bore." Lee fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the recited claim language. The optical detection mechanism of Lee is based on rotational alignment between the disk clutch and pulley to detect slip, not on light passing through aligned holes and an inner bore as recited in claim 1.
c. (Examiner response) Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Lee implicitly teaches a disk clutch (fig 1, 5) withing a compressor assembly, wherein the disk clutch comprises an inner bore configured to receive a shaft (fig 1, 2). Examiner notes the disk clutch may be reasonably construed as a hub since it is used to transfer rotation to the compressor.
Examiner notes Lee implicitly teaches a hole within the disk clutch since a first shaft travels through the disk clutch, wherein the tip of the shaft connects to the disk clutch. Examiner further notes the shaft must travel through clutch since the shaft powers the compressor when the clutch is engaged.
Examiner notes the claimed language recites “a pair of aligned first and second through holes extending through opposite walls of the first hub” in which the claim language does not recite the holes are aligned with each other. Lee implicitly teaches holes (fig 1, 10 & 11) that are aligned with other holes (fig 1, 13), wherein the holes extend through opposite walls of the disk clutch i.e. first hub.
Examiner notes due to the U.S.C 112 2nd rejection of claim 1, the claim language “first through hole and the second through hole are in optical communication with the first inner bore” is construed as indefinite. Therefore, the claim language was not included due to its indefiniteness as shown in the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection. A rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted. See MPEP 2173.06. Examiner suggests language such as the through holes intersect the inner bore as supported by (pg. 8, 0020, lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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. In regards to claims 1, 2, 8 the claimed subject matter “the first through hole and the second through hole are in optical communication with the first inner bore” “the third through hole and the fourth through hole are in optical communication with the second inner bore” & “the first drive shaft in the first inner bore the first through hole is in optical communication with the second through hole” are rendered indefinite. Examiner interprets the claim language as the first and second hole exchanging optical information with the bore hole. Examiner notes by definition optical communication is regarded as transmission of light at a distance using light to carry information which is performed visually or electronically. Clarification is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 9, & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 이병준 Lee Byung-Jun KR 100488561.
With respect to claim 1, Lee teaches a coupling, comprising:
a main body(fig 1);
a first hub (fig 1, 5) (pg. 3, ¶ 4) at a first end of the main body, wherein the first hub comprises a first inner bore configured to receive a first shaft (fig 1, 2) and a pair of aligned first (fig 1, 10) and second through holes (fig 1, 11) extending through opposite walls of the first hub.
With respect to claim 3 according to claim 1, Lee teaches the coupling wherein the first through hole (fig 2a, 10) has the same shape as the second through hole (fig 2a, 11), and the third through hole (fig 2b, 12) has the same shape as the fourth through hole (fig 2b, 13).
With respect to claim 8, Lee teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a main body (fig 1);
a first hub (fig 1, 5) (pg. 3, ¶ 4) at a first end of the main body, wherein the first hub comprises a first inner bore configured to receive a first shaft (fig 1, 2) and a pair of aligned first (fig 1, 10) and second through holes (fig 1, 11) extending through opposite walls of the first hub; and
a first drive shaft (fig 1, 2) configured to rotate the main body (fig 1, 5) (pg. 3, ¶ 2) , wherein the drive shaft is in the first inner bore.
With respect to claim 9 according to claim 8, Lee teaches the apparatus further comprising:
an optical source (fig 1, 21) configured to emit light toward the first through hole (pg. 3, ¶ 6); and
an optical sensor (fig 1, 23) configured to detect light propagated out of the second through hole (pg. 3, ¶ 6).
With respect to claim 10 according to claim 9, Lee teaches the apparatus of further comprising a controller “ECU” electrically connected “pulse signal” to the optical sensor (pg. 2, ¶ 11).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by 이병준 Lee Byung-Jun KR 100488561 in view of Sun CN 207414433.
With respect to claim 5 according to claim 1, Lee does not specifically teach the first through hole has the same size as the second through hole and the third through hole has the same size as the fourth through hole.
Sun’s background of invention, in the field of endeavor of drilling, teaches drills are capable of drilling holes of same diameter sizes (pg. 3, ¶ 10, lines 12-13). At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the combination’s first and second holes with the same size to achieve the predictable result of forming adequate holes enabling a field of view for the combination’s cameras.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 이병준 Lee Byung-jun KR 100488561 B1 in view of Engineers Edge, “Machinist Drilled Hole Tolerance Capabilites Chart Per. AND10387” https://www.engineersedge.com/manufacturing/drill-mechanical-tolerances.htm, November 9, 2013 hereafter Engineers Edge.
With respect to claim 6 according to claim 1, Lee does not specifically teach the coupling wherein the first through hole has a different size from the second through hole, and the third through hole has a different size from the fourth through hole.
Engineers edge, in the field of endeavor of drilling, teaches drills may (pg. 3, chart) form holes with slightly different sizes due to their inherent tolerance. At the time prior to the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the combination’s first and second holes with different sizes to achieve the predictable result of forming similar sized holes for enabling adequate field of view for the combination’s cameras.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed. Claims 2, 4, 7, & 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rejected base claim overcomes U.S.C 112 rejection and dependent claims are rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or to include the limitation(s) and any intervening claims into the base claim. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a second hub at a second end of the main body opposite the first end, wherein the second hub comprises a second inner bore configured to receive a second shaft and a pair of aligned third and fourth through holes extending through opposite walls of the second hub”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 2.
As to claim 4, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “first through hole has a different shape from the second through hole, and the third through hole has a different shape from the fourth through hole”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 4.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the first and second inner bores extend along an axial direction of the coupling, and the first through hole, the second through hole, the third through hole and the fourth through hole each extend along a radial direction of the coupling transverse to the axial direction”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 11, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “the controller is configured to cease rotation of the main body in response to a determination that the optical sensor has detected a threshold amount of light within a predetermined duration”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 11.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “generate an alarm in response to a determination that the optical sensor has detected a threshold amount of light within a predetermined duration”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 13.
As to claim 14, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “data acquisition system (DAQ) configured to receive a signal from the optical sensor and convert the received signal into a signal readable by the controller”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 14.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a first through hole and a second through hole, and the first through hole is optically aligned with the second through hole; and a plurality of draft shafts, wherein each of the drive shafts is received by an inner bore of a
corresponding hub of the plurality of hubs, wherein the plurality of drive shafts is configured to
rotate the main body”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights