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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s claims filed 11/8/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims contain both the British spelling (centring) and the English spelling of centering. The words should be consistently spelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 introduces “the bearing seat”, which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 10 properly introduces the bearing seat. It appears the order of the claims is backwards. 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 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, 3, 8-11, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahlgren (US PG Pub 2021/0001967).
Regarding claim 1, Ahlgren discloses:
A rear cap (48) forming a component of a housing of a drive unit, the rear cap comprising: a cover section that closes the housing at a rear and includes a propeller shaft opening that defines an axial direction and through which a propeller shaft of the drive unit is guided out of the housing (see fig 15); and a hollow-cylindrical mounting section that, as seen in the axial direction, is arranged on a side facing away from the propeller shaft opening (see fig 15), wherein the mounting section has a cylindrical mounting surface with a mounting thread (see fig 15 – portion that contains the threads), such that the rear cap is configured to be screwed onto a corresponding housing-side thread of the housing (see fig 15).
Regarding claim 3, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 1, wherein the mounting section has, next to the mounting surface and as seen in the axial direction in the direction of the cover section, a cylindrical centring surface that is configured to ensure centring relative to the housing during the mounting of the rear cap, such that the centering surface enters into a form fit with a corresponding housing-side centring surface of the housing (see arrow below pointing to the portion of the mounting section to the left of the threads).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 1, wherein the propeller shaft opening has a seal seat configured to receive a shaft seal for sealing against the propeller shaft (see fig 15).
Regarding claim 9, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 8, wherein the seal seat has a smaller diameter than the bearing seat as seen in a cross section perpendicular to the axial direction (see fig 15).
Regarding claim 10, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 1, wherein the propeller shaft opening has a bearing seat configured to receive a bearing for rotatably mounting the propeller shaft (see fig 15).
Regarding claim 11, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 1, wherein the rear cap is constructed rotationally symmetrically (see figs 14 and 15).
Regarding claim 13, Ahlgren discloses:
The rear cap according to Claim 1, wherein the rear cap is formed of a singular piece (see figs 14 and 15).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 3.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlgren (US PG Pub 2021/0001967).
Regarding claim 13, Ahlgren discloses the device of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize plastic, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 15, and 17-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights