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 .
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 “wherein a thickness of each injection-molded section (7) decreases at least in part in the direction toward the edge section (15)”, as in claim 7, 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 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 4 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a number of “and/or” clauses rending the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to whether or not the claims requires each limitation, or rather, only a single limitation. Additionally, the claim presents numerous possible combinations of which individual definite instance cannot be determined. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 5 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 further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Amended claim 3 recites “The gearwheel according to wherein each of …”. Because the amended claim no longer references a prior claim the claim is considered to be an improper dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1- 4, 6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1,2) as being anticipated by Rieple et al. US 11,662,009.
Rieple discloses:
Claim 1- A gearwheel (Fig. 2) comprising: an insert portion (20) made of metal and an outer portion (30) made of plastic, wherein the outer portion (30) comprises a toothed rim with a plurality of teeth directed outward relative to a central longitudinal axis of the gearwheel and the outer portion (30) is injection-molded onto the insert portion (20), wherein the outer portion (30) has a plurality of injection-molded sections (40) on a side surface of the insert portion which is directed transversely to the central longitudinal axis, and wherein the plurality of injection-molded sections (40) on the side surface (8) of the insert portion are positioned a distance apart from one another and side surface areas (45) of the insert portion between directly adjacent injection-molded sections are left free.
Claim 2- wherein a side (11, 12) or further side surface (11, 12) of the insert portion (20) is completely uncovered by the plastic of the outer portion (see claim 1 “wherein the outer part (30) on the first and/or the second end face (11, 12) has at least one tab …”), and the insert portion (20) has a form selected from (i) a cylindrical hub or disk-shaped hub or a hub with an inner cylinder, (ii) an outer cylinder, and (iii) an annular disk connecting the inner cylinder to the outer cylinder (20 is a cylindrical hub).
Claim 3, as best understood, - wherein each of the injection-molded sections (40) each have has a three-sided er triangular basic shape (fig. 5), wherein one corner (inner corner of 40) of each injection-molded section (40) extends radially inward toward the central longitudinal axis (X), wherein each injection- molded section has two side edges (see fig. 5) arranged such that between the two side edges an obtuse angle (fig. 5) opening radially outward relative to the central longitudinal axis (X) is formed (see fig. 5), and wherein the plurality of injection-molded sections (40) are distributed uniformly around the central longitudinal axis (fig. 5 shows 120 degree uniform distribution).
Claim 4, as best understood, - wherein the insert portion (20) defines a central through-going opening (see figures 2, 3)
Claim 6- wherein the toothed rim has an annular rim section (see fig. 3), wherein an inner circumference of the rim section is arranged on an outer circumference of the insert portion (fig. 3) and an outer circumference of the rim section corresponds to a root circle diameter for the teeth (fig. 3) of the toothed rim, and an edge section (unnumbered radius of 40 in fig. 9) of each injection-molded section directed radially outward relative to the central longitudinal axis is arranged at least partially or completely between the inner circumference of the rim section and the root circle diameter (fig. 9), and the edge section projects radially, relative to the central longitudinal axis, outward into the root circle diameter in an area of the teeth (fig. 9).
Claim 9- wherein the outer portion has three injection-molded sections distributed around the central longitudinal axis with 120 degree spacing (see fig. 5)
Claim 14- placing the insert portion (20) in an injection-molding die (see “mold” col 9, lns 9-24); and injection-molding the outer portion by way of a hot runner manifold, wherein the hot runner manifold has a plurality of outlet points (32) arranged for forming the outer portion (30), the plurality of outlet points (32) corresponding in number to a number of injection-molded sections (40) to be formed (in this case 3, see figure 15, col 9, lns 9-24), wherein the outlet points (32) are directed toward the side surface (11, 12) of the insert portion (see fig. 15).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieple et al. US 11,662,009.
Regarding claim 12, Rieple discloses 30, 60, and 120 degree spacings in order to distribute a load evenly across a circle. Rieple discloses the claimed invention except for 90 degree spacing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize 90 degree spacing in order to evenly distribute a load evenly across a circle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Rieple discloses all of the claimed subject matter as described above. Rieple does not disclose a worm with helical teeth.
It is old and well known to utilize worms with helical teeth for the purpose of reducing noise.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rieple and provide a worm with helical teeth, for the purpose of reducing noise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 7 and 8 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 neither discloses nor renders obvious the claimed combination including:
wherein each of the injection-molded sections has a three-sided shape, wherein one corner of each injection-molded section extends radially inward toward the central longitudinal axis, wherein the radially inward-directed corner of each injection-molded section is curved and defines a radius, such that a notional full circle with that radius lies completely on the side surface of the insert portion and coincides flush with an outer circumference of the insert portion.
wherein the edge section of each injection-molded section has a shape of a section of a circle, wherein the edge sections of all the injection-molded sections lie on a common circle and are arranged concentrically with the central longitudinal axis, and wherein a thickness of each injection-molded section decreases at least in part in the direction toward the edge section
wherein the edge section of each injection-molded section has a flow contour with at least one chamfer and/or with at least one rounded edge, the flow contour having a first rounded edge with a first radius, the radius being curved convexly outward, has a second rounded edge with a second radius, the second radius being curved concavely inward, and wherein the second rounded edge (22) is formed between the rim section (18) and the first rounded edge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0062905 discloses a similar device but does not disclose a metal insert and an outer portion formed of plastic.
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