DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 12 recites “wherein an outer circumference of the hub has a predefined shape; wherein the predefined shape comprises a plurality of alternating raised portions; and any two raised portions are coupled to each other via a sunken radius”. Claim 1, from which claim 12 depends recites “wherein the cross-section of the core is symmetrical across a line that is perpendicular to surfaces of the planar upper and lower planar portions of the core and that passes through a center of a width of the cross-section of the central portion of the core”. The examiner notes this particular combination of these two features are not present together within a single disclosed embodiment. For example, while figure 4 discloses “wherein the cross-section of the core is symmetrical across a line that is perpendicular to surfaces of the planar upper and lower planar portions of the core and that passes through a center of a width of the cross-section of the central portion of the core” it does not disclose “alternating raised portions”. Conversely, while figure 11 discloses alternating raised portions, it does not disclose “wherein the cross-section of the core is symmetrical across a line that is perpendicular to surfaces of the planar upper and lower planar portions of the core and that passes through a center of a width of the cross-section of the central portion of the core”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 47, line 12 objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “inward to complimentary shape” is grammatically awkward. The Examiner suggests - - inward to said complimentary shape- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as being anticipated by Oberle US 2010/0201030 A1.
Oberle discloses:
Claim 1- a ring gear (1) comprising a first material (see cross-hatching fig. 1), the ring gear having an inner diameter and an outer diameter defining a plurality of gear teeth (see outside of 2 in figure 3); a core (4) coupled to the inner diameter of the ring gear, the core comprising a second material that is different from the first material (see cross-hatching fig. 1); and a hub (3) coupled to the core, the hub comprising a third material (see cross-hatching fig. 1) different from the second material; wherein a cross-section of the core comprises an upper planar portion (unnumbered see fig. 1), a lower planar portion (unnumbered see fig. 1), and a central portion(unnumbered see fig. 1), and is tapered from the upper planar portion and the lower planar portion towards the central portion (see fig. 1).
Claim 5- wherein the outer diameter of the ring gear comprises a plurality of helical gear teeth (see fig. 4).
Claim 7- wherein the core comprises a middle portion around the hub, and an outer portion around the middle portion (see fig. 1).
Claim 8- wherein the hub is one of press- fit into the core and overmolded with the core (paragraph 0032 of detailed description).
Claim 9- wherein the hub is detachable from the middle portion of the core (the device is capable of being detached)
Claim 11- wherein the outer portion of the core comprises a mating surface configured to be coupled to the inner diameter of the ring gear (see fig. 1).
Claim 12- wherein an outer circumference of the hub has a predefined shape; wherein the predefined shape comprises a plurality of alternating raised portions; and any two raised portions are coupled to each other via a sunken radius (see figure 3).
Claim 14- wherein the plurality of alternating raised portions are formed at the outer circumference of the hub (figure 3)
Claim 15- wherein the outer portion of the hub further comprises a raised locking portion at a circumference thereof (see figure 3).
Claim 16- wherein the middle portion of the core comprises a plurality of complimentary shapes at an inner portion thereof, the complimentary shapes being in a mating configuration with the alternating raised portions of the outer portion of the hub (figs. 1 and 3).
Claim 18- wherein the cross-section of the core has an angled cross shape (fig. 1).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as being anticipated by Wells US 3,200,665 A.
Wells discloses:
Claim 48- a ring gear (figures 1 and 2) comprising a first material (see cross-hatching), the ring gear having an inner diameter and an outer diameter defining a plurality of gear teeth (22), wherein the inner diameter of the ring gear is smooth (see unnumbered flat portions in figure 3); a core (15) coupled to the inner diameter of the ring gear, the core comprising a second material that is different from the first material (see cross-hatching); and a hub (10) coupled to the core, the hub comprising a third material different from the second material (see cross-hatching), wherein the core surrounds the hub (see figures 1 and 2); wherein a cross-section of the core comprises an upper planar portion, a lower planar portion, and a central portion (generally shown at 19, 18 and 16 in figure 2), and is tapered from the upper planar portion and the lower planar portion towards the central portion (see fig. 2), wherein the cross-section of the core is tapered from the upper and lower planar portions to a center of the central portion (see fig. 2), and wherein a portion of the lower planar portion (16) abuts against a shoulder (see 16 abutting against 12).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oberle US 2010/0201030 A1.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Oberle discloses the claimed invention except for stainless steel, cast iron, and aluminum 6061. Stainless steel, cast iron, and aluminum 6061 are old and well known for their durability, strength and strength to weight ratio. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize stainless steel, cast iron, and aluminum 6061 for their durability, strength and strength to weight ratio, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 6- wherein the inner diameter of the ring gear has a smooth surface compared to the outer diameter (outer diameter of 114 is gear teeth).
Regarding claims 19-24- Oberle discloses the claimed invention except for the particular values of claims 19-24. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the particular values as a simple matter of optimizing the performance variables, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 47 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed combination including: wherein the predefined shape comprises a plurality of alternating raised portions; and any two raised portions are coupled to each other via a sunken radius, wherein the hub includes a raised locking portion around a middle of the outer circumference of the hub and wherein the core includes a complimentary shape to the raised locking portion to connect the hub and core, wherein inner diameter portions of the core taper radially inward to complimentary shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 3,304,796 A discloses a similar device but does not disclose stainless steel.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERENCE BOES whose telephone number is (571)272-4898. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6:30.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
TERENCE BOES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3618
/TERENCE BOES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618