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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Han does not have a negative limitation of “without” a lining and therefore fails to teach or disclose the claimed limitations. This argument is not persuasive. Han explicitly cites the disk (210) as a “lining”, which is differentiated with just a generic “friction plate” (220), and then in Figure 1 it can be seen where the “lining” is relative to just the generic “friction plate” – the “lining” has a layer adjacent to the housing, the lining, and another layer before the “friction plate”. This difference can be seen in Figure 2 with the differentiated plate (220) which is blank in the Figures relative to the teeth (indicating “without”), and then the other disk has demarcations and lines between the teeth and the face. This type of arrangement is known to one of ordinary skill in the art. For example, Yun-Chang (KR0134720Y1) discloses the same type of arrangement: one disk (14) includes a friction lining (14a) in comparison to a disk (15) without a friction lining. Alternatively, there is Muehlegger (US 20220112930) which shows one disk with the (5) with a lining (8) on both sides of the disk and it is again called a “lining disc”, with a “counter disc” (3) that doesn’t have a lining. Of course, Muehlegger also teaches the linings can be alternated around with respect to the different disks.
The rejections are maintained.
Because of the amendments of claim 1 that have included features from both claims 3 and 4 and now recites them in the alternative, and because the limitations of claim 3 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), the rejection has been formulated with a 102(a)(1).
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 1-2, 5-8, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han (KR 20240022198).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 12-15, Han discloses a coupling for a drive train of a wind turbine between a transmission and a generator, wherein the coupling has a coupling hub on a drive input side, and a coupling hub a drive output side, and an intermediate section, wherein the coupling has a torque limiter, and wherein the torque limiter has more than two friction elements, in particular disks (see Figure 1 which includes a coupling for the generator of a wind turbine with an input and output side, and an intermediate section that comprises more than two friction disks 210 and 220). A drive train and wind turbine with the drive train are implicit since the coupling is for a drive train of a wind turbine. Han further discloses the friction elements are designed as friction flanges (210, 220), wherein the friction flanges are designed with an internal set of teeth (Figure 2, 220 has internal teeth) without friction linings (220 described as the friction plate), and wherein the friction flanges are designed with an external set of teeth with friction linings (210 has external sets of teeth and described as a lining), and the contact pressure of the friction flanges can be adjusted using clamping screws (240).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 16-17, Han discloses the coupling according to claim 1 above. Han further discloses four friction elements, in particular friction flanges, are provided in the torque limiter (see Figure 1) and the contact pressure of the friction elements, in particular the friction flanges, can be adjusted (see spring 230 and control bolt 240).
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses the coupling according to claim 1 above. Han further discloses the coupling has an intermediate coupling section, and wherein the torque limiter is integrated in the intermediate coupling section (see Figure 1, the torque limiter with friction disks is located in the intermediate section of the coupling).
Regarding claim 8, Han discloses the coupling according to claim 1 above. Han further discloses the friction flanges are alternately held once on the outer face in the intermediate coupling section, and once on the inner face in the intermediate coupling section, and wherein a friction lining is arranged between each of the alternately held friction flanges (see Figures 1-2, the flanges alternate with the friction lining arranged therebetween since it is arranged on the face of the one flange, and one flange includes internal teeth and the other flange has external teeth, and the teeth hold the flanges to the outer/inner faces of the intermediate coupling section).
Regarding claim 11, Han discloses the coupling according to claim 1 above. Han further discloses the torque limiter is arranged in the coupling hub (160).
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 20240022198).
Han discloses the coupling according to claim 7 above.
Han fails to teach the friction flanges are acted upon by a central plate spring or by plate spring assemblies integrated into the intermediate coupling section.
Han teaches the utilization of a spring assembly (230) which is integrated into the intermediate coupling section.
It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that alternatives to spring measures are plate spring measures. Such plate springs perform the same purposes as biasing springs as disclosed in Han. Such springs apply a pre-set clamping force to the friction surfaces which determines the amount of torque the limiter will transmit before the friction surfacers slip, acting as a safety mechanism to prevent damage from overloads. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the spring of Han such that it is a central plate spring or a plurality of plate spring assemblies as none but the expected result of setting a clamping force which determines the amount of toque that will transmit before the friction surface slip, thereby preventing damage from overloads.
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 JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745