DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 4/9/2026 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled and claims 5 and 6 are new.
-The specification objection has been withdrawn in part due to applicant amending the abstract accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant’s argument that: “Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not provided a convincing or persuasive reason why it would be appropriate to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner, and respectfully points out that even if the references are hypothetically combined, for the sake of argument, the combination fails to produce applicant's invention as claimed. Moreover, the differences between the claimed invention and the cited references are substantial and significant, and therefore, applicant's invention is non-obvious as compared to the respective teachings of the references.”; has been acknowledged. However, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner’s reasons to combine was presented in the 102 rejections “providing appropriate lubrication to bearings which reduces bearing wear and increase operating efficiency of transmission device” which is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the combined teachings of the references used in the 102 rejections show that it would be well known in the art to modify a gear case with a pocket overlapping protrusion to provide appropriate lubrication to bearings which reduces bearing wear and increase operating efficiency of transmission device.
-Applicant’s argument that: “the cited references all disclose the cases of separate components, where separate parts are combined to form an integrated structure; thus, they are not formed into an integral shape from a single member. Accordingly, they are clearly disadvantageous compared to the invention of Claim 1 in terms of strength and cost.” has been acknowledged. However, EP discloses a cylindrical part (71) having a pocket (within 71 via 76) which are integral structures (as shown in Figure 1) obviously formed simultaneously.
-Applicant’s argument that: “there is no necessity or reason to integrate
components by simultaneously forming them from a single member. That is, the cited references provide no motivation to arrive at the configuration of Claim 1 of the present application. The invention of Claim 1 is not a mere aggregation of configurations but an invention having technical significance in enhancing strength and reducing manufacturing costs, and possesses a configuration that is neither disclosed nor motivated by the cited references. Therefore, the invention of Claim 1 would not have been conceived from the cited references.” has been acknowledged. However, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner’s reasons to combine was presented in the 102 rejections “providing appropriate lubrication to bearings which reduces bearing wear and increase operating efficiency of transmission device” which is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the combined teachings of the references used in the 102 rejections show that it would be well known in the art to modify a gear case with a pocket overlapping protrusion to provide appropriate lubrication to bearings which reduces bearing wear and increase operating efficiency of transmission device.
-Applicant’s argument that: “With respect to claim 3, the recess is a structure for controlling the flow of oil as explained in paragraphs [0010], [0101], and [0118] of the subject application (as published). In contrast, the cited references merely adopt a shape structurally necessary to avoid interference between components and does not aim for fluid control. If the technical idea of "avoiding interference" in the cited references is taken as a starting point, one cannot arrive at the configuration of the recess of Claim 3. Furthermore, since "fluid control" is not intended in the cited references, there is no motivation to do so; thus, it is not possible to arrive at the invention of Claim 3.” has been acknowledged. However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., recess is a structure for controlling the flow of oil) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Although, even if claim 3 was amended to recite “the recess is a structure for controlling the flow of oil”, this would be considered an “intended use recitation” and if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, the Yamamoto prior art does disclose “fluid control” pertaining to the protrusion as described in [0078].
-The examiner has withdrawn the CN’640 in view of Yamamoto 103 rejection. Examiner feels that the EP’214 in view of Yamamoto meets the limitations of claims more appropriately.
Note: the examiner suggest applicant amend claim 1 (using limitations pertaining to claim 3) focusing on the recess being a groove extending along the circumferential direction of the sun gear as described in [0088] in specification to possibly overcome the rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/6/26 has been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the implied phrase “is disclosed” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, a hollow space in the cylindrical part (as recited in claim 6) should be pointed out in drawings 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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-the term “hallow” should be changed to “hollow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1, 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3848214 in view of Yamamoto et al 20130283972 (both previously cited). As to claim 1, EP discloses a transmission device, comprising: a sun gear (41); a ring gear (43) arranged concentrically with the sun gear; planetary gears (50) meshing with the sun gear and with the ring gear; bearings (56, 57) through each of which a shaft (51) of a corresponding one of the planetary gears is inserted; a differential case (60 can be considered differential case due to [0035], lines 24-33 and [0038], lines 23-25 describing that 60 carries differential mechanism; 81) including bearing holders (71, 72)
each holding a corresponding one of the bearings; a differential mechanism ([0038]) arranged inside the differential case; a first output shaft (2) and a second output shaft (4) that are coupled to the differential mechanism; and a gear case (11) supporting the differential case in a rotatable manner, wherein the bearing holders each include: a cylindrical part (71, 72) holding a corresponding one of the bearings, and a pocket (within 71 and 76; [0030], lines 53-55) that is recessed from a radially inner side toward a radially outer side of the sun gear to have an internal space (within 76) and that overlaps with the corresponding one of the bearings (56) in an axial direction of the sun gear, and the cylindrical part and the pocket are an integral structure formed by simultaneous forming (71 is shown as integral with 76 and obviously formed simultaneously); however, EP doesn't disclose the gear case including a protrusion that is arranged to overlap with the pocket of each bearing holder from the radially inner side of the sun gear and that protrudes toward the bearings in the axial direction of the sun gear.
Yamamoto discloses a transmission device, comprising: a sun gear (42); a ring gear (41) arranged concentrically with the sun gear; planetary gears (44) meshing with the sun gear and with the ring gear; bearings (67) through each of which a shaft (45) of a corresponding one of the planetary gears is inserted; a differential mechanism (85) arranged inside a differential case; a first output shaft and a second output shaft (O) that are coupled to the differential mechanism; and a gear case (11, 21, [0052]) supporting the differential case in a rotatable manner, wherein Yamamoto shows that it is well known in the art to provide the gear case with a protrusion (Figure 9; 22 and 23) that is arranged to overlap with a pocket (57) of each bearing holder (43) from the radially inner side of the sun gear and that protrudes toward the bearings in the axial direction of the sun gear.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gear case in EP with a pocket overlapping protrusion in view of Yamamoto to provide appropriate lubrication to bearings which reduces bearing wear and increase operating efficiency of transmission device.
As to claim 3, EP in view of Yamamoto discloses wherein the gear case further includes a recess (91 in Yamamoto) that is arranged in a back surface of the protrusion on the radially outer side of the sun gear and that is recessed toward the radially inner side of the sun gear.
As to claim 5, EP discloses wherein the pocket protrudes from an end of the cylindrical part opposite to a corresponding one of the planetary gears (76 is shown in Figure 1 radially protruding from end of 71 on other side of planet gear 53).
As to claim 6, EP discloses wherein the internal space of the pocket communicates with a hallow space (space within 71 holding 56) in the cylindrical part.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 June 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights