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 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.
Claims 1-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smetana (DE 10 2011 088 669).
Smetana discloses and shows at Figs. 1 and 2 a transmission comprising:
an input shaft (2a) to receive torque from a drive unit (2);
an output shaft (28) to transmit torque to a load (5); and
a park system to selectively brake the output shaft that includes a nut (19) translatable along a first longitudinal axis (about spindle 18) that is driven by an actuator to cause the translation of the nut along the first longitudinal axis, a sleeve (11) coupled to the nut and translatable along a second longitudinal axis, and a lever (20) interconnecting the nut and the sleeve to coordinate movement of the nut along the first longitudinal axis with movement of the sleeve along the second longitudinal axis.
The actuator is disposed on an axis perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis. To have the actuator arranged on the first longitudinal axis would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since an actuator arranged in line with or perpendicular to the axis are equivalents in the art and selection of either would have been well within the level of skill in the arr.
Cl. 2 – the first and second longitudinal axes are spaced apart from one another in a radial direction.
Cl. 3 – the lever extends at an angle to a vertical axis to interconnect the nut and the sleeve.
Cl. 4 – the lever is pivotally coupled to a stationary structure (21) at a pivot point disposed between the nut and the sleeve in the radial direction.
Cl. 5 – the lever includes a ring received by a post of the stationary structure.
Cl. 6 – at least one hanger limits translation of the nut along the first longitudinal axis (to act as an end stop and prevent to the nut from traveling in the housing (15) and gear (17) at opposite ends of the spindle).
Cl. 7 – the lever extends between the nut and the sleeve at an angle to each of the first and second longitudinal axes.
Cl. 8 – the lever extends between the nut and the sleeve at an angle to a vertical axis.
Cl. 9 – the lever is pivotally coupled to a stationary structure at a pivot point disposed between the nut and the sleeve in a radial direction.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smetana (DE 10 2011 088 669) in view of Yan (CN 113765290).
Cl. 10 – Smetana discloses and shows at Figs. 1 and 2 a park system to selectively brake an output shaft of a transmission, the park system comprising:
a park actuation assembly having a park gear (37) in direct contact with the output shaft (2a),
an electric (2) actuator to supply rotational power, and
an actuation linkage coupled between the electric actuator and the park actuation assembly including a nut (19) translatable along a first longitudinal axis (about spindle 18), a sleeve (11) coupled to the nut and translatable along a second longitudinal axis, and a lever (20) interconnecting the nut and the sleeve to coordinate movement of the nut along the first longitudinal axis with movement of the sleeve along the second longitudinal axis.
Smetana does not include a pair of stationary structural hangers to limit the translation of the nut. Yan discloses and shows a linear apparatus having a pair of stationary limiting structures (11) surrounding the rotational axis of the spindle (51) and motor (30), the limiting structures limit translation of the nut and sliding block (20).
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 Smetana’s park system to where a pair of stationary limiting structures are structurally secured and surrounding the first axis to limit translation of the nut along the first longitudinal axis as taught by Yan.
Cl. 11 – the first and second longitudinal axes are parallel to one another.
Cl. 12 – the first and second longitudinal axes are spaced apart from one another in a radial direction.
Cl. 13 – the lever extends at an angle to a vertical axis to interconnect the nut and the sleeve.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smetana in view Yan, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Greb et al. (DE 10 2018 132 374 ).
Smetana and Yan disclose and show the invention of claim 10 as described elsewhere above. Regarding claims 14 and 15, Smetana does not specify a rod supporting the sleeve. Greb discloses and shows a park system where an actuation linkage further comprises a rod (44) supporting a sleeve (47) that is adapted for translation along the second longitudinal axis, the rod prevents against lateral displacement and bending (pg. 10, 3rd full paragraph).
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 Smetana system to include a rod supporting the sleeve that is adapted for translation along the second longitudinal axis, the rod preventing against lateral displacement and bending as taught by Greb.
Cl. 15 – the actuation linkage further comprises a collar affixed to the rod for translation therewith along the second longitudinal axis (Greb, Fig. 2, flared end of rod, 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
After careful review and consideration of the application as amended, the Examiner concurs with the Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 17.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/BOBBY RUSHING, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights