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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-6, 9, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMOOK et al. (DE 102015225606 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, SMOOK discloses in Figs. 3-4, an arrangement comprising: a first planetary stage (305); a hollow shaft (B, See Fig. 1 below) and a second planetary stage (101, shown in Fig. 4); wherein a sun shaft (327/105) of the first planetary stage (305) is connected to a planet carrier (120) of the second planetary stage (101) for conjoint rotation by means of a spline joint (111, Fig. 1; paragraph [0036] in the provided translation discloses the hollow shaft (109, mislabeled 1069 in Fig. 4), connected to the shaft (105) via the spline (111), (paragraph [0051] discloses an embodiment of the planetary stage (101) with a rotationally fixed ring gear (107) and the carrier (120) rotationally fixed to the shaft (109/ 1069) that is connected via splines (111) to the shaft (105)) ; and, wherein a web (A, see Figure 1 below) of the planet carrier (120) is arranged axially between the planet gears (321) of the first planetary stage (305) and the planet gears (117) of the second planetary stage (101), and characterized in that wherein the spline joint (111) is axially spaced apart from the web, wherein the hollow shaft (B) is integrally connected to the web (A) of the planet carrier, wherein the spline joint (111) is formed by the sun shaft (327, 105) together with the hollow shaft (B), and wherein the spline joint (111) is arranged to be offset on a rotor side (left side of Figure 1).
SMOOK does not disclose a planet carrier of the first planetary stage radially surrounds the spline joint.
Figure 2 below is modified Fig. 4 where the carrier of the first planetary gear set has been modified to surround the spline joint.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modified the arrangement of SMOOK such that the carrier of the first planetary gear set would surround the spline joint, to allow for the gearing arrangement to be shorter in the axial direction, thus allowing the arrangement to be packaged into a smaller area, resulting in better weight distribution, a smaller housing, and potentially lower overall weight. It is well known, that the rearrangement of parts of an invention only requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, SMOOK discloses a hollow shaft (B, see Figure 1 below) integrally connected to the web, wherein the hollow shaft has an internal toothing, wherein the sun shaft (327/105) has an external toothing; and wherein the internal toothing and external toothing intermesh for conjoint rotation.
Regarding claim 3, SMOOK discloses the hollow shaft (B) forms a shoulder (C, see Figure 1 below) that the sun shaft abuts.
Regarding claim 4, SMOOK discloses the shoulder (C) is axially spaced apart from the web (A).
Regarding claim 5, SMOOK discloses the web (A) forms the shoulder (C) [both the web and the shoulder are formed as one piece].
Regarding claim 6, SMOOK discloses the hollow shaft has a protrusion (D, see Figure 1 below) that extends axially from the spline joint toward a sun gear (325) of the first planetary stage (305).
Regarding claim 9, SMOOK discloses a gap from the spline joint (111) to the planet carrier (120) of the second planetary stage is bridged by the hollow shaft.
Regarding claim 11, SMOOK discloses a bearing (131, Fig. 4) disposed so as to support a wall on a generator side of the second planetary stage.
PNG
media_image1.png
904
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Combining of Figs. 3 and 4 of SMOOK DE 102015225606 A1
PNG
media_image2.png
1470
824
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Modified Fig. 4 of SMOOK showing the first carrier surrounding the spline joint
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Without necessary increases in the radial dimensions, it would not be possible for the Smook DE first planetary stage to surround the spline.
The increase in outer diameter of the gear arrangement goes directly against the purpose of Smook.
The modification would result in a dramatically smaller overall gear ratio.
The proposed modification of Smook renders the gear arrangement of Smook unsuitable for its intended purpose, thereby teaching away from the description of Smook.
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Figure 3 below is a modification of Fig. 3 of Smook. The radial dimensions of the gears and the housing has not been altered. To accommodate the spline joint, the planet carrier of the first gearset is modified, along with the bearing and the internal web of the housing that hold the bearing. This by no means the only way to modify the prior art to axially shorten the transmission for reasons recited in the rejection above, but shows the arguments of the Applicant are not relevant to at least this modification of the prior art.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a modified reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the unmodified reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image3.png
985
1067
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Modified Fig. 3 of SMOOK, showing no change in radial dimensions of gears or housing
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 DEREK D. KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7951. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: From 5:30am-1:30pm 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, 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.
/DEREK D KNIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights