DETAILED ACTION
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a retaining structure” in claim 1. This is disclosed in the Applicant’s specification as (64 and 70) or 61b or (65c and 65d).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims should be formatted with proper indentations in accordance with Rule 1.75(i), where appropriate, particularly in Claims 1 and 5.
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 2-6, 17-19 and 23 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.
Regarding Claim 2, “a gearbox cover” is recited however this is already introduced in parent Claim 1. It is the Examiner’s position that only one such gearbox cover exists therefore proper antecedent basis should be used.
Regarding Claim 5, lines 5-6, “the front end of the gear” should be recited as --the rear end of the gear--. This because the front end (32b per the Specification, [0048]) is not in contact with a plane (12 per the Specification), rather it is the rear end (32a) of the gear. Similarly [0049] should be corrected as it appears Figs. 3-4 are correct.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "an other end surface" in lines 12-13 however this is already introduced in lines 7-8. It is the Examiner’s position that only one such structure exists therefore proper antecedent basis should be used.
Regarding Claim 5, line 13, “the rear end of the gear” should be recited as --the front end of the gear--. This is because the wedge shaped block (60 per the Specification) is not in contact with the other end surface of the thrust bearing set at the rear end (32a) of the gear but at the front end (32b) per Fig. 4 and [0050].
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the large force distribution hole" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 23, line 4, the phrase “the rear end of the gear” should be recited as --the front end of the gear--. This is because no surface of the wedge shaped block (60) is in contact with the other end surface of the thrust bearing set at the rear end (32a) rather is in contact at the front end (32b) via 62 ([0050]) per Fig. 4. Similarly [0050] should be corrected (i.e. with 32b instead of 32a) as it appears Figs. 3-4 are correct.
Claim 23 recites the limitations “the thrust bearing set” and "the slope" in lines 4 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 18 and 19 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 8, 15, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arndt et al. (US Patent No. 9,546,716 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Arndt et al. discloses
a gearbox casing (10), a gearbox cover (3), a transmission assembly (comprising 12 and 4), and a wedge-shaped block (5), wherein the transmission assembly is arranged inside the gearbox casing, the gearbox cover is mounted on the gearbox casing (Fig. 7), the wedge-shaped block is configured to eliminate an axial clearance between the transmission assembly and the gearbox casing (lines 28-30 of Column 7), and the wedge-shaped block further comprises a retaining structure (i.e. 19 and the hole in 5 into which 19 is screwed, Fig. 7) capable of retaining the wedge-shaped block in a position to eliminate the axial clearance (lines 35-40 of Column 8).
Regarding Claim 2, Arndt et al. discloses
a gearbox cover (3), wherein the gearbox cover is mounted on the gearbox casing (Fig. 7), and the retaining structure is pressed by the gearbox cover (i.e. 19 is contacted by 8/3, Fig. 6-7) to retain the wedge-shaped block in the position to eliminate the axial clearance (i.e. intended use). It is noted that no pressing structure is required by the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Arndt et al. discloses
a slope (17) is provided in the gearbox casing, one end surface (16) of the wedge-shaped block is in contact with the transmission assembly (at 11), and an other end surface of the wedge-shaped block (13) is in contact with the slope (lines 28-38 of Column 7, Fig. 6-7).
Regarding Claim 4, Arndt et al. discloses
the transmission assembly is a lead screw gear assembly, the lead screw gear assembly comprises a lead screw shaft (the threads to which ’4’ points in Fig. 7) and a gear (12) mounted on the lead screw shaft, the gear is arranged in the gearbox casing, and the slope (17) is arranged in the gearbox casing and close to a position at which the lead screw extends out of the gearbox casing (i.e. 17 is at the right end of casing 10, near where the shaft extends out of the casing).
Regarding Claim 7, Arndt et al. discloses
the retaining structure comprises an oblique hole provided at a top of the wedge-shaped block (see Fig. 7, where 19 screws into 5), and further comprises a second fastening screw (19), and the second fastening screw is obliquely screwed through the gearbox cover (via 8) to come into contact with the oblique hole to drive the wedge-shaped block to move (i.e. intended use).
Regarding Claim 8, Arndt et al. discloses
a diameter (i.e. the narrower diameter, at the tip end of the hole) of the oblique hole is less than a diameter (i.e. the larger diameter/shoulder portion) of the second fastening screw.
Regarding Claim 15, Arndt et al. discloses
the wedge-shaped block is integrally formed by injection molding (i.e. is integral as in Fig. 5 and product by process), and the retaining structure is arranged on an upper half of the wedge-shaped block in contact with the gearbox cover (Fig. 6-7, wherein the cover includes 8).
Regarding Claim 22, Arndt et al. discloses
the wedge-shaped block or a lower half of the wedge-shaped block is of an inverted U-shaped structure (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 23, Arndt et al. discloses
a surface (16) of the wedge-shaped block or a lower half of the wedge-shaped block which is in contact with the other end surface of the thrust bearing set at the rear end of the gear is a plane, and a surface of the wedge-shaped block or the lower half of the wedge-shaped block which is in contact with the slope in the gearbox casing is a slope (13). Also see the 112 rejection above.
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, 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) 6, 16, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt et al. (US Patent No. 9,546,716 B2) in view of Yang et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0370635 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Arndt et al. does not disclose first fastening screws.
Yang et al. discloses the gearbox cover (12) is fixed to the gearbox casing (11) through a plurality of first fastening screws (13, Fig. 1), for the purpose of securing the cover to the casing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Arndt et al. by including the first fastening screws as
disclosed by Yang et al., for the purpose of securing the cover to the casing.
Regarding Claim 16, 20 and 21, Arndt et al. does not disclose force distribution holes or symmetric weight-reducing holes.
Yang et al. discloses a plurality of force distribution holes/symmetric weight-reducing holes (i.e. see the holes provided in 50, between the central hollow oval and the outer periphery, Fig. 3) provided on the upper half of the wedge-shaped block in contact with the gearbox cover, and the plurality of force distribution holes transversely run through the wedge- shaped block, for the purpose of reducing weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Arndt et al. by including the force distribution
holes/symmetric weight-reducing holes as disclosed by Yang et al., for the purpose of
reducing weight. It is noted that the claim does not define or characterize ‘force
distribution’ and by the modification, the holes would be disposed at least in the upper
half of the wedge-shaped block of Arndt et al.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arndt et al. (US Patent No. 9,546,716 B2) in view of Napau et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0339654 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Arndt et al. does not disclose a screw to be tapped.
Napau et al. discloses a fastening screw (1202) tapped into a hole (464), for the purpose of securing two structures together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Arndt et al. by including the self tapping screws/holes arrangement as disclosed by Napau et al., for the purpose of securing two structures together. It is noted that this may be applied to the second fastening screw and oblique hole of Arndt et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10-14 and 17-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record shows a pair of thrust bearing sets arranged as claimed (Claim 5) or a spring steel bar as claimed (Claims 12-14), a large elliptical force distribution hole and a plurality of small force distribution holes above it (Claims 17-19) or the hardness of portions of the wedge shaped block to be as claimed (Claims 10 and 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Park et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0244142) discloses casing 20, cover 50 and wedge 70.
Bruhn et al. (US Pub No. 2020/0124158) discloses casing 12a, cover 12b and wedge 50.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights