Drawings
The drawings are objected to because at Fig. 5:
Reference number 44 appearing next to number 10 should be deleted.
Refence number 40 should be changed to 42.
Reference number 42 should be changed to 44.
See paragraph 0029.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the detailed description of the invention fails to describe details corresponding to claims 15-18 & 21-22,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend. Claims 21-22 depend on claim 11, but include only the “constituent parts” of the coupling of claim 11 and thus do not include the entire coupling which includes features besides the parts, (e.g. the structural relationships that form the parts into an assembled coupling). As such, each of claims 21-22 fails the infringement test (see MPEP § 608.01(n)III).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because each is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a data agglomeration, a product that could be obtained in the human mind or by a human using a pen and pencil. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11- 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigerio, FR 1.104.652 (all citations taken from the attached English language translation) in view of Clarke, US 6,283,868. Frigerio discloses a drive train/industrial application, comprising:
a first shaft (see “respective shaft” at page 4, line 2) designed as a drive shaft;
a second shaft (see “respective shaft” at page 3, line 21) designed as an output shaft; and
a coupling (see Figs. 1-2) designed to couple the first shaft in a torque-transmitting manner to the second shaft, said coupling comprising a first coupling part (3) connected to the first shaft, a second coupling part connected to the second shaft, and a plurality of dumbbell-shaped buffer elements (see Fig. 3), each buffer element comprising two end buffers (7, 7) which are connected via a central region (8), said buffer elements being held on a circular arc (see Fig. 2) of the first coupling part via the respective one of the central regions in slotted radial webs (6) of the first coupling part, with the second coupling part comprising axially directed drivers (5) which are seated between adjacent ones of the buffer elements in an operating situation.
Frigerio does not expressly disclose the coupling further comprising a woven fabric insert forming a contact surface of the buffer elements in facing relationship to the radial webs. At Figs. 4 & 6, Clarke shows a woven fabric (col. 5, line 21) insert (58) forming a contact surface of buffer elements (40, 56) in facing relationship to radial webs (45). At col. 2, lines 1-6 and col. 4, line 12, Clarke teaches providing the buffer elements with the woven fabric insert in order to provide wear resistance, increased load capacity, and improved resistance to slippage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive train of Frigerio by providing a woven fabric insert in order to provide wear resistance, increased load capacity, and improved resistance to slippage as taught by Clarke.
As to claims 12-13, at Fig. 6, Clarke shows the contact surface formed by the woven fabric insert (58) extends from a central region to mutually facing flanks of the end buffers (56).
As to claim 14, at Fig. 6, Clarke shows the contact surface formed by the woven fabric insert (58) is seated in a surface recess (63) in the buffer element (40), with the surface recess having a depth which substantially corresponds to a thickness of the woven fabric insert.
As to claims 15-16, Clarke does not expressly disclose the thickness of the woven fabric insert (58) is between 0.2 and 0.3 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make the thickness of the woven fabric insert (58) from between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 17, Clarke discloses the woven fabric insert (58) is made of a material (see col. 5, lines 16-20) having an elasticity which is lower than an elasticity of a material (see col. 4, lines 63+) of the buffer element (40).
As to claim 18, Clarke discloses the buffer element (40) is made of an elastomer (see col. 4, lines 63+) which for producing the buffer element is compressed together with the woven fabric insert in a mold at a temperature (see col. 7, lines 50-63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ricefield, Foster and Ochiai disclose torsionally elastic couplings
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 et.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights