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 shaft and tubular portion of at least claim 1 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p.3, line 19 and p.5, line 9 refer to element 5 as “external annular portion” and “outer annular wall”. Nomenclature should be consistent.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 4, line 3, “crown 4” should be --crown 3-- and “support means 3” should be –support means 4--.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 4, line 9 and p. 8, line 24 refer to element 6e as “upper end portion” and “end wall” respectively. Nomenclature should be consistent.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 5, line 10, “cup element 5” should be --cup element 15—and line 21, “cup element 18” should be --cup element 15--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “elastic means (12)” should be --elastic means (21)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2, “spokes (14)” should be --spokes (24)--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “said disc (14)” should be --said disc (23)--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: elastic means and actuator means in claims 1-3, 5, 9; sealing and damping means in claims 12 and 13; and damping means in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-17 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. Lines 5 and 6 recite “said hub defining a main portion configured to connect said hub to said rotating shaft and an end portion extending axially from said tubular portion,”. It is unclear if said tubular portion is the same element as a main portion or a different element. For examination purposes they were considered to be the same element as both were identified as (7’). Claims 2-17 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said tubular portion" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 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 13 recites the limitation "said sealing and damping means" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2017174070.
As per claim 1, WO2017174070 discloses a filtering pulley (10) [drive wheel] comprising a hub (12) [sleeves] adapted to be fixed to a shaft (p.3, line 22) rotating around an axis (14) and a crown (20) [outer surface] mounted in a rotationally free coaxial way with respect to said hub (12),
said crown (20) defining at least one profile (fig. 1) configured to cooperate with a mechanical transmission element (p. 5, lines 21-29),
said hub (12) defining a main portion (near 12) (fig. 1) configured to connect said hub (12) to said rotating shaft and an end portion (portion of 12 located distally from main portion, near 48) (fig. 1) extending axially from said tubular portion (near 12) (fig. 1)
said pulley (10) comprising a filtering group (16) [torsional vibration dampeners] operatively interposed between said hub (12) and said crown (20), said filtering group (16) comprising a cup element (30) [cover pieces] cooperating with said crown (20) on the side opposite said profile to define a space (46) [inner spaces], elastic means (26) [energy storage elements] movably housed inside said space (46) and actuator means (32) [damper flanges] configured to cooperate in contact with said elastic means (26),
said pulley (10) comprising a damper (38) integral with said hub (12),
said actuator means (32) and said damper (38) being carried by said end portion of said hub (12).
As per claim 2, WO2017174070 as set forth above, discloses at least one of said cup element (30) and said crown (20) define a pair of axial projections (fig. E-1)), said projections dividing said space (46) into two portions within which said elastic means (26) can move under the action of said actuator means (32).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 3, WO2017174070 as set forth above, discloses said elastic means (26) comprise an elastic group (26), said elastic group comprising at least one helical spring (p.5, lines 30-33). A bow spring is a form for a coil spring.
As per claim 12, WO2017174070 as set forth above, discloses sealing and damping means (44) (p.5, 6) operatively interposed between said crown (20) and said damper (38) and configured to isolate said space (46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11, 13 and 14-17 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at 313 446-4858. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654