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 .
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 “clamping member” 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “self-aligning member” in claim 1, and “clamping member” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The self-aligning member is interpreted to correspond to the plug-in part 12, the insertion post 121 and bushing 122.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the two plug-in parts at the same end”, and “the two plug-in axes at two different ends” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected based on its dependence on a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation “clamping member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-4 and 9-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewar et al. (US2014/0378260) in view of Prill et al. (US2009/0275415).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Dewar teaches a floating gear set (see gap 106 that allows for radial displacement), comprising a shaft assembly (42) and two gears (96, 58), wherein two axial ends of the shaft assembly are respectively inserted into the two gears (see Fig. 2), and the shaft assembly comprises a shaft body (42).
Dewar fails to teach the shaft is self-aligning, and comprises a self-aligning member, and the shaft body is connected with the two gears in a position-limited manner in a circumferential direction through the self-aligning member, and the shaft body is configured to swing radially relative to the two gears through the self-aligning member.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In an analogous art, Prill teaches a drive shaft. Prill teaches the shaft is self-aligning through self-aligning members (60) inserted into socket sections (34) of a shaft joint. The self-aligning members cooperate with grooves (see Prill Fig. 5) to secure the shaft to the shaft joint. The self-aligning members allow for the shaft to radially swing (see Fig. 1, for example).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the floating gear set of Dewar and change it to have the shaft joint in Prill, so that the shaft is self-aligning, and comprises a self-aligning member, and the shaft body is connected with the two gears in a position-limited manner in a circumferential direction through the self-aligning member, and the shaft body is configured to swing radially relative to the two gears through the self-aligning member as taught by Prill to allow for the shaft to radially swing.
Regarding claim 2, Dewar as modified teaches both of the two gears are respectively provided with insertion holes (see Fig. 2) passing through an axial direction, and an inner wall of the insertion hole of at least one of the gears is provided with an insertion groove (Prill teaches slots 76 cooperating with self-aligning members) extending in the axial direction; the self-aligning member is a plug-in part (see Prill Figs. 4A-B) arranged corresponding to the insertion groove, and the plug-in part is located radially outside the shaft body and is inserted into the insertion groove (see Prill Fig. 5); the insertion groove includes a groove bottom wall (Prill element 76A), and, a surface, facing away from the shaft body, of the plug-in part is at least partially in clearance fit with the groove bottom wall (Prill Figs. 2-3), and the shaft body is configured to swing radially relative to the gear in the radial direction through the plug-in part (Prill Fig. 1 shows the radial swing).
Regarding claim 3, Dewar as modified teaches any of the two ends of the shaft body is provided with two plug-in parts (Prill teaches each shaft end is provided with plug-ins), and the two plug-in parts at the same end are coaxially arranged with each other (see Fig. 2 of Prill); a central axis of the two plug-in parts at the same end is a plug-in axis, a central axis of the shaft body is a main axis, and the plug-in axis is perpendicular to the main axis (see Fig. 2 of Prill); the two plug-in axes at two different ends are arranged at an included angle (see Prill Fig. 1 showing the offset angle), and any of the two plug-in axes and the main axis form a swinging plane of the shaft body (see Fig. 1 showing the radial swing).
Regarding claim 4, Dewar as modified teaches a surface, facing away from the shaft body, of the plug-in part is a spherical surface (see generally element 60 in Prill Fig. 2), and the spherical surface abuts against the groove bottom wall or is in clearance fit with the groove bottom wall in the radial direction (see Prill Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Dewar as modified teaches the outer wall surface of the plug-in part comprises two planar parts (see Prill element 66) arranged opposite to each other, the inner wall surface of the insertion groove comprises two groove side walls (see Prill 76B) arranged opposite to each other, and the two planar parts of the plug-in part are configured to be in contact with the two groove side walls of the corresponding insertion groove respectively in the circumferential direction (see Prill paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claim 10, Dewar as modified teaches the insertion hole of at least one of the gears comprises a small-diameter hole section (Prill generally 70) and a large-diameter hole section (Prill generally 72), and the insertion groove is arranged in the small-diameter hole section (see Prill Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Dewar as modified teaches the self-aligning shaft assembly is connected with at least one of the two gears in the axial direction in a position-limited manner (see axial limit element 80 in Prill).
Regarding claim 12, Dewar as modified teaches a clamping member (90), wherein the inner wall of the insertion hole of at least one of the gears is provided with two clamping grooves (see Prill Fig. 3) at intervals in the axial direction, and the two clamping grooves are provided with two clamping members respectively, so that the two clamping members assembled in the same gear form a limit connection with the plug-in part in the axial direction.
Regarding claim 13, Dewar as modified teaches radial dimensions of the two gears are different (see Fig. 2), and one of the two gears with larger radial dimension is a big gear (58), and the big gear comprises a hub part (connected with inner part 88), an external teeth part (meshing with part 88) and a rib part (connected with pin 60) connecting the hub part and the external teeth part.
Regarding claim 15, Dewar as modified teaches a gearbox (22), comprising the floating gear set according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Dewar as modified teaches a wind turbine (Fig. 1), comprising blades (16), a hub (14) and a transmission mechanism (generally 22), wherein the transmission mechanism comprise the gearbox according to claim 15.
Regarding claims 17-19, the claims are substantially identical to claim 10, and Dewar as modified teaches the limitations in an identical manner.
Regarding claims 20-21, the claims are substantially identical to claim 11, and Dewar as modified teaches the limitations in an identical manner.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dewar in view of Prill and Adams (US3359757).
Regarding claims 5-8, Dewar in view of Prill teach the floating gear set according to claim 2, but fail to teach the plug-in part comprises an insertion post and a bushing, the insertion post and the shaft body have an integrated structure, wherein the bushing is rotatably assembled with the insertion post, wherein a cross section, perpendicular to the axial direction, of the outer wall surface of the insertion post arranged on at least one of the ends of the shaft body is circular, and the cross section, perpendicular to the axial direction, of the inner wall surface of the bushing is also circular.
In an analogous art, Adams teaches a shaft joint. Adams teaches an insertion post (21) with an attached bushing (17). The insertion post is integrated with the shaft (20). A cross section of the insertion post and the bushing are circular (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the floating gear set of Dewar in view of Prill and change it so that the plug-in part comprises an insertion post and a bushing, the insertion post and the shaft body have an integrated structure, wherein the bushing is rotatably assembled with the insertion post, wherein a cross section, perpendicular to the axial direction, of the outer wall surface of the insertion post arranged on at least one of the ends of the shaft body is circular, and the cross section, perpendicular to the axial direction, of the inner wall surface of the bushing is also circular according to the teachings of Adams to provide bearing surfaces for the self-alignment structure.
Dewar as modified fail to explicitly teach the bushing comprises a plurality of split parts, and the plurality of split parts are distributed around the insertion post.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the floating gear set of Dewar as modified and change the bushing to comprise a plurality of split parts, and the plurality of split parts are distributed around the insertion post for ease of assembly.
The limitations “the insertion post is mounted on an outer wall surface of the shaft body, and the bushing is assembled outside the insertion post” and “and/or, the cross section, perpendicular to the axial direction, of the outer wall surface of the insertion post arranged on at least one of the ends of the shaft body comprises at least two line segments with different curvatures, and the inner wall surface of the bushing is mounted on the outer wall surface of the insertion post” are considered optional due to the use of “or” and “and/or”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US documents 2017/0198785, 7642668, and 7090465 teach wind turbine gearboxes. US documents 4772246 and 4636180 teach shaft joints.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745