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 § 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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites in the 2nd to last line of the claim “whereby a rattling sound between the idle gear and the driven gear is suppressed.” It is unclear and not defined where the rattling sound is being produced or how it is being produced, and if the sound is produced between the idle gear and the driven gear, it is unclear how the source of the sound that is creating the sound is also suppressing the sound. Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and are therefore rejected.
Claim 2 recites in the 3rd line of the claim “the inertia of the driven gear and the input shaft is at least twice the inertia necessary for rotating the input shaft of the load device.” It is unclear how an inertia can be necessary for rotating the input shaft, wherein inertia is a property that is related to an object’s mass. Wherein components such as gears that are linked together rotationally can have varying inertias, such that a first gear inertia can be twice that of a second gear inertia, but alone with no forces acting on either gear, the gears will not rotate. For the purposes of examination it will be understood that the driven gear and the input shaft have an inertia at least twice of the inertia of the input shaft.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genter et al (US 5,882,181 hereinafter “Genter”) in view of Jang et al (US 10,960,866 hereinafter “Jang”).
In regards to claim 1:
Genter teaches a load device assembly for use with an internal combustion engine (12), the load device assembly comprising: an idle gear (22) that is configured to rotate in conjunction with rotation of a power gear (24) of the internal combustion engine (12); a driven gear (16) that is configured to rotate by receiving a rotational force of the power gear (24) via the idle gear (22), the idle gear being disposed between the driven gear and the power gear (Shown in Figure 1); and a load device (14) that is configured to rotate integrally with the driven gear (16) and that includes an input shaft (34) to serve as a load of the power gear (24) via the idle gear (22), the driven gear (16) and the input shaft (34) have a combined first mass such that an inertia of the driven gear (16) and the input shaft (34) is larger than an inertia necessary for rotating the input shaft (34) and smaller than an inertia of the power gear (24), wherein the inertia of two components will be larger than the inertia of a single component that is included in the two components and wherein the power gear is a larger mass and has a larger diameter than the input shaft, and wherein the suppression of a rattling sound is functional language and Figure 1 of Genter does appear to show a plurality of openings in the idle gear.
Genter is silent to the idle gear having a plurality of openings.
Jang teaches an idle gear (51) having a plurality of openings (Shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the idle gear of Genter to have a plurality of openings as taught by Jang in order to reduce the mass of the idle gear.
In regards to claim 2:
Genter teaches the input shaft is a crankshaft, but is silent to the inertia of the driven gear and the input shaft is at least twice the inertia of the input shaft of the load device. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963) the court upheld that a rejection may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In the instant case the inertia of the input shaft and the driven gear is to be least twice that of the inertia of the input shaft. Wherein the inertia of the driven gear is to be at least greater than the inertia of the input shaft, due to the inertia of the input shaft on one side of the equation being equal to the inertia of the input shaft, (inertia drive shaft + inertia input shaft > 2 x inertia input shaft, subtracting the inertia of input shaft from both sides arrives at inertia drive shaft > inertia input shaft). The driven gear in the instant case has an estimated 2.5 times larger radius than that of the input shaft, and wherein inertia is defined by mass multiplied by radius squared, the radius being exponential, even if the mass of the driven gear were half that of the input shaft, the radius would only have to be 1.41 times larger and if the mass of the driven gear is a quarter of the input shaft, the radius would only have to be 2 times larger.
In regards to claim 3:
Genter the load device is an air compressor that is configured to discharge compressed air by rotation of the crankshaft.
In regards to claim 4:
Genter as modified teaches the plurality of openings are formed symmetrically with respect to an imaginary line extending in a radial direction from a central axis of the idle gear at equal intervals in a circumferential direction, and distances between a center of the idle gear and the plurality of openings are the same (Shown in Figure 3 of Jang).
In regards to claim 6:
Genter teaches an internal combustion engine assembly (12) comprising: the load device assembly according to claim 1; the power gear; and an internal combustion engine that applies power to the power gear (Figure 2 shows the power gear attached to the crankshaft, wherein the engine powers rotation of the crankshaft).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genter and Jang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sano et al (US 2014/0311464).
In regards to claim 5:
Genter teaches the plurality of openings are circles having the same diameter, and a distance between the plurality of openings and an inner peripheral edge of the idle gear is longer than a distance between the plurality of openings and an outer peripheral edge of the idle gear, wherein the claim recites a hypothetical that would be true when the limitations of the hypothetical are applied.
Genter further circular holes in which appear to have the same diameter (idle gear 22 behind a removable cap shown in Figure 1 of Genter) wherein the hole is closer to an outer peripheral edge than a center of the gear. Sano teaches circular holes in a gear (Shown in Figure 3 of Sano) that extend about the entirety of the gear. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the openings extend about the entirety of the gear as taught by Sano in order to have the mass of the gear balanced and to reduce the mass of the gear.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genter and Jang as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jung et al (US 2020/0149619 hereinafter “Jung”).
In regards to claim 7:
Genter does not teach a vehicle comprising: the internal combustion engine assembly according to claim 6.
Jung teaches a vehicle (Paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to have the engine of Genter in a vehicle as taught by Jung in order to use the power generated by the engine to be used for traveling. Vehicles are known in the art to allow faster travel and to carry loads over extended distances such as a commercial vehicle or large truck (both are recited having an engine in Paragraph [0003] of Jung).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5 of Remarks, filed 6/22/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a different interpretation of the previously applied reference. Applicant has amended the independent claim however the amendment has new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections in regards to the amendment. New rejections have been applied to address the amendments in regards to the inertia of the driven gear and input shafts of claims 1 and 2.
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 JAMES JAY KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/JAMES J KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights