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 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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SMOOK et al. (DE 102015225606 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 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 surrounds the spline joint to create a short sun shaft.
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.
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:
1) “the rationale provided by the Office to modify Fig. 4 of Smook to render previously pending claim 8 obvious relies on impermissible hindsight”;
2) “the Office proffered reasons to modify the prior art do not have a rational connection between facts and the conclusion that the invention as a whole is obvious”;
3) The provided “rationale is not legally sufficient because Smook provides no evidence as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the specific modifications; and
4) the Office’s modification of Fig. 4 of Smook is based on Applicant’s disclosure.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant.
Regarding arguments 1, 4, and 4: The Examiner has not relied upon the disclosure of the instant application as a rationale to modify the Smook reference. Instead, the Examiner has used common sense and facts that are well known in the art. Moving components of a machine closer together in the axial direction will allow the machine as a whole to occupy less axial space, making the apparatus more compact, easier to package, and can change its weight distribution. These facts are well known, and common sense.
Regarding argument 3: MPEP 2142 (X)(A) states, "there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004)"
Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
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