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 .
Claim Objections
The limitation “the first pressure angle being greater than the second pressure angle” (claims 2, 8 and 15) is rendered redundant by applicant’s amendment to add specific angle ranges in the last two lines of each of claims 1, 7 and 14 (from which 2, 8 and 15 depend, respectively).
The noted redundant limitation should be deleted from claims 2, 8 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. More specifically, the newly added range “second pressure angle is in the range of 19 degrees to 30 degrees” (last line of each of the independent claims 1, 7 and 14) was not expressly set forth in the original disclosure and thus constitutes new matter. Note that neither of the two originally disclosed second pressure angle ranges of “15 degrees to 30 degrees” nor “17 degrees to 25 degrees” supports the new matter range. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (newly added subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the new subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (an adequate description of a genus may not support claims to a subgenus or species within the genus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 2, 7, 8, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binney US11156285 in view of the non-patent literature to Kapelevich entitled “Geometry and design of involute spur gears with asymmetric teeth” (see copy attached to the previous 3/10/2026 Office Action).
Claim 1. Binney discloses a spur gear (116) of a gearbox (104, 106) of a gas turbine engine system (102) of an aircraft (10), comprising: a gear body (body of 116); and a plurality of gear teeth (126, 132) extending radially outwardly from the gear body, a gear tooth (132) of the plurality of gear teeth including two opposing tooth sides (136, 134) extending to a tooth tip (tip of 132), the tooth tip defining a radially outboard extent of the gear tooth; wherein a first tooth side (drive side 136) of the opposing tooth sides has a first pressure angle (pressure angle of drive side 136); and wherein a second tooth side (coast side 134) of the opposing tooth sides has a second pressure angle (pressure angle of coast side 134) different from the first pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134; col7, ll.13-18, discloses either drive side higher or visa versa coast side higher), wherein the second pressure angle is in the range of 19 degrees to 30 degrees (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24, gives coast side second pressure angle example of 20 degrees and states other angles are contemplated).
Binney does not disclose that the first pressure angle is in the range of 30 degrees to 34 degrees as recited in applicant’s claims 4, 10 and 17.
Binney does disclose (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24), by way of “example”, that the first drive side pressure angle can be 36 degrees but “not limited thereto… those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that any other suitable angle Ɵ or α can be used for a given application without departing from the scope of this disclosure” (emphasis added). Binney (p.2, “OTHER PUBLICATIONS”) directs the reader by citation to the Kapelevich non-patent literature regarding spur gear design.
Kapelevich teaches (p.6) that it was known to be desirable in the spur gear art for the drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees (paired with a coast side second pressure angle of 20 degrees). See figure 3 on p.6 and the written description thereof on the same page which states “The isograms A show constant pressure angles: isogram… A4 is Ǿd = 33˚ (Ǿc = 20˚)”.
From the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Binney drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees, as taught by Kapelevich, since Binney expressly suggests “any other suitable angle” and expressly points by citation to Kapelevich’s spur gear design teachings, which in turn teach 33 degrees as a suitable drive side first pressure angle.
Claim 2. The spur gear of claim 1, wherein the first tooth side is a drive side of the gear tooth, the first pressure angle being greater than the second pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134).
Claim 7. A gearbox (104, 106) of a gas turbine engine system (102) of an aircraft (10), comprising: a gearbox housing (outer surface of 104, 106); and one or more gear arrangements (116) disposed in the housing to transfer rotational energy extracted from a gas turbine engine to one or more accessory components, a gear arrangement (116) of the one or more gear arrangements including a spur gear (116), the spur gear including: a gear body (body of 116); and a plurality of gear teeth (126, 132) extending radially outwardly from the gear body, a gear tooth (132) of the plurality of gear teeth including two opposing tooth sides (136, 134) extending to a tooth tip (tip of 132), the tooth tip defining a radially outboard extent of the gear tooth; wherein a first tooth side (drive side 136) of the opposing tooth sides has a first pressure angle (pressure angle of drive side 136); and wherein a second tooth side (coast side 134) of the opposing tooth sides has a second pressure angle (pressure angle of coast side 134) different from the first pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134; col7, ll.13-18, discloses either drive side higher or visa versa coast side higher), wherein the second pressure angle is in the range of 19 degrees to 30 degrees (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24, gives coast side second pressure angle example of 20 degrees and states other angles are contemplated).
Binney does not disclose that the first pressure angle is in the range of 30 degrees to 34 degrees as recited in applicant’s claims 4, 10 and 17.
Binney does disclose (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24), by way of “example”, that the first drive side pressure angle can be 36 degrees but “not limited thereto… those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that any other suitable angle Ɵ or α can be used for a given application without departing from the scope of this disclosure” (emphasis added). Binney (p.2, “OTHER PUBLICATIONS”) directs the reader by citation to the Kapelevich non-patent literature regarding spur gear design.
Kapelevich teaches (p.6) that it was known to be desirable in the spur gear art for the drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees (paired with a coast side second pressure angle of 20 degrees). See figure 3 on p.6 and the written description thereof on the same page which states “The isograms A show constant pressure angles: isogram… A4 is Ǿd = 33˚ (Ǿc = 20˚)”.
From the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Binney drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees, as taught by Kapelevich, since Binney expressly suggests “any other suitable angle” and expressly points by citation to Kapelevich’s spur gear design teachings, which in turn teach 33 degrees as a suitable drive side first pressure angle.
Claim 8. The gearbox of claim 7, wherein the first tooth side is a drive side of the gear tooth, the first pressure angle being greater than the second pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134; col7, ll.13-18).
Claim 13. The gearbox of claim 7, wherein the gearbox is configured for operable connection to the gas turbine engine via a power take off (arrow connecting 102 and 104 in fig.1; and/or 108; see also col.5, ll.7-10 stating “Powertrain system 100 includes an input module 104 for receiving power from a powerplant system 102, such as gas turbine engines”) connecting the gas turbine engine to the gearbox.
Claim 14. A gas turbine engine system (102) of an aircraft (10) comprising: a gas turbine engine (gas turbine engine of 102); and a gearbox (104, 106) operably connected to the gas turbine engine, the gearbox including: a gearbox housing (outer surface of 104, 106); and one or more gear arrangements (116) disposed in the housing to transfer rotational energy extracted from a gas turbine engine to one or more accessory components (e.g., 14, 16), a gear arrangement (116) of the one or more gear arrangements including a spur gear (116), the spur gear including: a gear body (body of 116); and a plurality of gear teeth (126, 132) extending radially outwardly from the gear body, a gear tooth (132) of the plurality of gear teeth including two opposing tooth sides (136, 134) extending to a tooth tip (tip of 132), the tooth tip defining a radially outboard extent of the gear tooth; wherein a first tooth side (drive side 136) of the opposing tooth sides has a first pressure angle (pressure angle of drive side 136); and wherein a second tooth side (coast side 134) of the opposing tooth sides has a second pressure angle (pressure angle of coast side 134) different from the first pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134; col7, ll.13-18, discloses either drive side higher or visa versa coast side higher), wherein the second pressure angle is in the range of 19 degrees to 30 degrees (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24, gives coast side second pressure angle example of 20 degrees and states other angles are contemplated).
Binney does not disclose that the first pressure angle is in the range of 30 degrees to 34 degrees as recited in applicant’s claims 4, 10 and 17.
Binney does disclose (col.5, l.63 – col.6, l.24), by way of “example”, that the first drive side pressure angle can be 36 degrees but “not limited thereto… those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that any other suitable angle Ɵ or α can be used for a given application without departing from the scope of this disclosure” (emphasis added). Binney (p.2, “OTHER PUBLICATIONS”) directs the reader by citation to the Kapelevich non-patent literature regarding spur gear design.
Kapelevich teaches (p.6) that it was known to be desirable in the spur gear art for the drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees (paired with a coast side second pressure angle of 20 degrees). See figure 3 on p.6 and the written description thereof on the same page which states “The isograms A show constant pressure angles: isogram… A4 is Ǿd = 33˚ (Ǿc = 20˚)”.
From the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Binney drive side first pressure angle to be 33 degrees, as taught by Kapelevich, since Binney expressly suggests “any other suitable angle” and expressly points by citation to Kapelevich’s spur gear design teachings, which in turn teach 33 degrees as a suitable drive side first pressure angle.
Claim 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the first tooth side is a drive side of the gear tooth, the first pressure angle being greater than the second pressure angle (col.5, ll.53-62 discloses drive side pressure angle of 136 is greater than that of coast side 134; col7, ll.13-18).
Claim 20. The system of claim 14, wherein the gearbox is connected to the gas turbine engine via a power take off (arrow connecting 102 and 104 in fig.1; and/or 108; see also col.5, ll.7-10 stating “Powertrain system 100 includes an input module 104 for receiving power from a powerplant system 102, such as gas turbine engines”) connecting the gas turbine engine to the gearbox.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments that the new ranges amended into the independent claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections are persuasive. However, applicant fails to argue against the 35 U.S.C. 103 grounds of rejection set forth in the previous Office action, which suggest all newly amended ranges as is detailed in the reworded rejections above. Additionally, note that the newly amended ranges include new matter as is detailed in the new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights