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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first Office Action on the merits of Application 18/956,154 filed on 11/22/24. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8
Line 2: “formed a material” should be amended as -- formed from a material --.
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 (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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 8,075,229 to Mok et al.
Claim 1
Mok discloses in Fig 13,
A gearbox assembly for an actuator comprising: a housing (e.g. 310); a gear assembly (e.g. 312) arranged within the housing; and a torque limiting sleeve (e.g. 402, Column 7 Lines 8-15, torque limit is adjusted) arranged on an exterior of the housing, wherein the torque limiting sleeve is axially positioned radially outward from the gear assembly (see Fig 13).
Claim 2
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, wherein the torque limiting sleeve is integrally formed with the housing, and the torque limiting sleeve comprises a radial thickness of the housing at a position axially outward from the gear assembly that is greater than a radial thickness of the housing not axially aligned with the gear assembly (e.g. 102 is thicker than 310).
Claim 3
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, wherein the torque limiting sleeve comprises at least two sleeve sections (e.g. sleeve is of varying thicknesses which represents two sections) that are secured together about the housing.
Claim 4
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, wherein torque limiting sleeve comprises an inner diameter surface that is arranged in contact with an outer diameter surface of the housing (see Fig 13).
Claim 6
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, wherein the torque limiting sleeve is removably attached to the housing (e.g. sleeve is removable, 402, see Fig 13a).
Claim 9
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, wherein the torque limiting sleeve has an axial length that is equal to an axial length (e.g. gear assembly portion with 390, 332, & 330) of the gear assembly within the housing.
Claim 14
The gearbox assembly of claim 1, further comprising an axial stop installed on an exterior (see Fig 13 for axial stop adjacent 402) of the housing and configured to secure an axial position of the torque limiting sleeve on the housing.
Claim 16
An aircraft actuator system comprising: a component to be actuated (e.g. 372); an actuator (e.g. 300); and a gearbox assembly operably arranged between the actuator and the component to be actuated, wherein the gearbox assembly comprises: a housing (e.g. 310); a gear assembly (e.g. 312) arranged within the housing, wherein the gear assembly is configured to couple an input shaft (e.g. 304) connected to the actuator with an output shaft (e.g. 330) connected to the component to be actuated; and a torque limiting sleeve (e.g. 102) arranged on an exterior of the housing, wherein the torque limiting sleeve is axially positioned radially outward from the gear assembly (Fig. 13).
Claim 17
The aircraft actuator system of claim 16, wherein the torque limiting sleeve is removably attached to the housing (e.g. sleeve is removable, 402, see Fig 13a).
Claim 18
The aircraft actuator system of claim 16, wherein the torque limiting sleeve has an axial length that is equal to an axial length (e.g. gear assembly portion with 390, 332, & 330) of the gear assembly within the housing .
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.
Claims 7, 8, 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent 8,075,229 to Mok et al.
Claim 7
Mok discloses a gearbox assembly for an actuator with a housing, gear assembly and torque limiting sleeve. Where the torque limiting sleeve is arranged on the exterior of the housing radially outward of the gear assembly. Mok however does not explicitly disclose that the torque limiting sleeve and the housing are formed from the same material. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the torque limiting sleeve and the housing are formed from the same material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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.
Claim 8
Mok however does not explicitly disclose that the torque limiting sleeve and the housing are formed from different materials. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to have the torque limiting sleeve and the housing are formed from a different material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a 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.
Claim 10
Mok however does not explicitly disclose that wherein the torque limiting sleeve has an axial length that is greater than an axial length of the gear assembly within the housing. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to select axial length that is greater than an axial length of the gear assembly within the housing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 11
Mok however does not explicitly disclose that wherein the torque limiting sleeve has an axial length that is less than an axial length of the gear assembly within the housing. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the claims were effectively filed to select axial length that is less than an axial length of the gear assembly within the housing, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, 13, 19 & 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUAN LE whose telephone number is (571)270-3122. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm PST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUAN LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
