DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the amendment filed for application 18/843,776 on October 23, 2025.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 3 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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/Invention Interpretation
Applicant claims/discloses “a number and a size of the double planets is selected such that a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability of the planetary gear unit is provided.” Applicant also claims/discloses “a ratio of an interior diameter of the first ring gear and the second ring gear to the number and the size of the double planets is selected such that the predetermined torsional stiffness and/or the predetermined load-bearing capability are/is maximized and an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized.” It can be shown, however, that a number and size of the planets or ratio of an interior diameter of the ring gears and the number of planets are not the only variables that would determine a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined load-bearing capability and/or how an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized.
For a planetary transmission as claimed/disclosed, not only are there physical limitations (i.e. the interior gearing of the planets (numbers/size) must fit within the ring gear), but also a functionality of the planetary transmission itself is also limited (i.e. ring gear teeth # = 2 x planet teeth # + Sun gear teeth #).
For a “predetermined torsional stiffness,” gear geometry, material properties, bearing stiffness, gear mesh stiffness, housing carrier stiffness (among others) are all critical properties in determining a torsional stiffness.
It can be shown, however, that the fact that applicant does not specifically disclose or claim these other variables does not affect the enablement of the claims/invention. It merely illustrates that all of the variables of such a transmission as disclosed/claimed can be modified to produce a preferred predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit, predetermined load-bearing capability and/or minimized external diameter of the ring gears.
Therefore, as long as the physical structure as claimed is taught by the prior art, the variables of the structure can also be modified with reasonable expectation for success to produce a preferred predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit, predetermined load-bearing capability and/or minimized external diameter of the ring gears.
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 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanzon ‘036. With regard to claim 1, Lanzon teaches a planetary gear unit comprising: a first ring gear 76 having toothing and a second ring gear 104 having toothing, and double planets each having a first gear wheel 78 having toothing and a second gear wheel 106 having toothing, the first gear wheel and the second gear wheel of each double planet being disposed so as to be rotatable about a common shaft axis 82,wherein the toothing of each first gear wheel 78 engages in the toothing of the first ring gear 76, and the toothing of each second gear wheel 106 engages in the toothing of the second ring gear 104. Lanzon lacks the specific teaching of at least four double planets and wherein a number and a size of the double planets is selected such that a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability of the planetary gear unit is provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Lanzon to employ at least four double planets with reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the load per double planet, and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. vs. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Lanzon to employ a number and a size of the double planets to be selected such that a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability of the planetary gear unit is provided with reasonable expectation for success in order to achieve preferred properties for the transmission, also since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have also been obvious because a particular known technique (modifying variables) to a known device (claimed transmission) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. With regard to claim 3, Lanzon teaches the unit, wherein a tube 42 is disposed in the interior space.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz ‘041 (From IDS). With regard to claim 1, Schulz teaches a planetary gear unit comprising: a first ring gear 2 having toothing and a second ring gear 4 having toothing, and at least four double planets (Fig. 1) each having a first gear wheel 14 having toothing and a second gear wheel 15 having toothing, the first gear wheel and the second gear wheel of each double planet being disposed so as to be rotatable about a common shaft axis 38 axis, wherein the toothing of each first gear wheel 14 engages in the toothing of the first ring gear 2, and the toothing of each second gear wheel 16 engages in the toothing of the second ring gear 4. Schulz lacks the specific teaching wherein a number and a size of the double planets is selected such that a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability of the planetary gear unit is provided. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schulz to employ a number and a size of the double planets to be selected such that a predetermined size of an interior space in a center of the planetary gear unit, a predetermined torsional stiffness of the planetary gear unit and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability of the planetary gear unit is provided with reasonable expectation for success in order to achieve preferred properties for the transmission, also since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have also been obvious because a particular known technique (modifying variables) to a known device (claimed transmission) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. With regard to claim 2, Schulz teaches the unit, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the number and the size of the double planets are selected such that the predetermined torsional stiffness and/or the predetermined load-bearing capability are/is maximized and an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schulz to employ a number and the size of the double planets are selected such that the predetermined torsional stiffness and/or the predetermined load-bearing capability are/is maximized and an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized with reasonable expectation for success in order to achieve preferred properties for the transmission, also since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have also been obvious because a particular known technique (modifying variables) to a known device (claimed transmission) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. With regard to claim 7, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein the toothing of the first ring gear 2 is helical and the toothing of the second ring gear 4 is helical, wherein the first ring gear 2 is configured to rotate in a first rotation direction 30 and the second ring gear 4 is configured to rotate in a second rotation direction 32, wherein the toothings of the first gear wheel 14 and of the second gear wheel 16 of each of the at least four double planets are helical toothings, wherein each helical toothing has a first tooth flank and a second tooth flank opposite the first tooth flank (page 6, lines 10-14), wherein a surface normal of the first tooth flank is directed in the first rotation direction and a surface normal of the second tooth flank is directed in the second rotation direction (page 6, lines 10-14),wherein a first double planet and a second double planet of the at least four double planets are disposed adjacent to each other and such that a first force-exerting element 38 exerts a first force to press the first tooth flanks of the first gear wheel of the first double planet against the second tooth flanks of the first ring gear, and to press the second tooth flanks of the second gear wheel the first double planet against the first tooth flanks of the second ring gear to preload the ring gears in the first and the second rotation direction (Fig. 2), and such that a second force-exerting element 36 exerts a second force opposite the first force to press the second tooth flanks of the first gear wheel of the second double planet against the first tooth flanks of the first ring gear, and to press the first tooth flanks of the second gear wheel of the second double planet against the second tooth flanks of the second ring gear to preload the ring gears in the first and the second rotation direction (Fig. 2). With regard to claim 8, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein a first half of the at least four double planets 6/12 is preloaded in the first rotation direction, and wherein a second half of the at least four double planets 8/10 is preloaded in the second rotation direction (page 7), and wherein the first half and the second half of the double planets are alternately disposed (Fig. 1). With regard to claim 9, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein the at least four double planets comprise an even number of double planets (Fig. 1). With regard to claims 10, 17 and 19, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein “any other number of double planets” may be used (page 5, line 20), but lacks the specific teaching wherein the at least four double planets comprise at least six double planets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schulz to employ at six double planets with reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the load per double planet, and also since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. vs. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. With regard to claims 11 and 18, Schulz teaches the unit, but lacks the specific teaching wherein a ratio of an interior diameter of the first ring gear and the second ring gear to the number and the size of the double planets is selected such that the predetermined torsional stiffness and/or the predetermined load-bearing capability are/is maximized and an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Schulz to employ a ratio of an interior diameter of the first ring gear and the second ring gear to the number and the size of the double planets is selected such that the predetermined torsional stiffness and/or the predetermined load-bearing capability are/is maximized and an external diameter of the ring gears is minimized with reasonable expectation for success in order to achieve preferred properties for the transmission, also since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have also been obvious because a particular known technique (modifying variables) to a known device (claimed transmission) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. With regard to claim 12, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein the number and the size of the double planets is selected such that the predetermined size of the interior space in the center of the planetary gear unit is provided (see claim 1), and wherein the interior space is bounded by a largest imaginary cylinder having an axis lying on the rotational axis of the first gear ring which imaginary cylinder does not intersect any of the at least four double planets (Fig. 1; space in center). With regard to claim 13, Schulz teaches the unit, wherein the interior space is empty of any gears of the planetary gear unit (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the unit as claimed, and particularly including a tube disposed in the interior space, and including the remaining structure of claim 14. Claims 15 and 16 are dependent upon claim 14.
Please Note: Schulz teaches the limitations of claim 12 and 13 (please see rejections above), but lacks the specific teaching of a tube in the interior space. The tube is not only why a large imaginary circle is needed in the design, but to include one within Schulz would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. The tube for wiring in the cited Barley ‘807 reference is located in the center of the planetary gears, but there is interior space is not empty of any gears of the planetary gear unit.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the Lanzon ‘036 reference, applicant argues that “nothing in the record suggests that persons of ordinary skill in the art consider reducing the load per double planet to be desirable, especially in view of the fact that the proposed modification is also likely to increase the weight and cost of the planetary gear unit.” It can be shown, however, that an increase in the number of planet gears would reduce the load on each respective planet gear and this is a known improvement. Therefor, a desire for such an improvement need not be articulated in the base reference, since a reduction of load and wear is a known benefit of increasing the number of planetary gears. The Schulz ‘041 reference also teaches such a modification as any number of planetary gears can be used (one or any number; page 5) based on preferred design parameters.
Applicant also argues that it has not been shown that the number of double planets in a planetary gear assembly is recognized as a result-effective variable, or suggest how to determine when a number of double planets in a planetary gear assembly is "optimal." As stated earlier, the increase in the number of double planets reduces load per planet gear. This results in less wear per planet gear. A reduction in wear is an optimal result.
Applicant also argues that the following has not been satisfied:
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a "comparable" device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as
the claimed invention;
One illustration of an increase in the number of double planets is the Schulz ‘041 reference. The result of less load per planet based an increase in number of planets is known in the art.
Applicant did not state any specific arguments with regard to the Schulz ’041 reference.
It has been shown that both Lanzon (with an increase number of planets) and Schulz teach the claimed physical planetary gear unit of claim 1. It has been held that discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable is ordinary within the skill of the art (number and size of planets) for a predetermined size an interior space, a predetermined torsional stiffness and/or a predetermined load-bearing capability). See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 276, 205, USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). A stated in In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In claim 1, applicant has not positively claimed the number and size of planets will result in all 3 of a predetermined size an interior space, a predetermined torsional stiffness AND a predetermined load-bearing capability. Only one result is positively claimed and it is known that the size of a planetary gear will determine the size of the interior space of the planetary gears. It can be shown, however, that it is known to modify a known planetary gear unit (as taught by Lanzon and Schulz) to achieve any preferred design specifications (size, torsional stiffens or load bearing parameters).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Suggestions for Applicant
It is suggested applicant amend Fig. 1 to include a circle (tube) in the center to illustrate the limitations of claims 3 and 14.
Should applicant amend claim 1 to include the limitations of claims 12-14, claims 4-6 could be rejoined. Any repetitive claims should be cancelled (such as claims 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
November 4, 2025