DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to application 19/110,967 filed on March 12, 2025.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: applicant did not include Figures 1 and 2. Applicant should add Figures 1 and 2 from the WIPO application (only Figures 3-6 were included in the official drawings of the application).
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 8 of Claim 1, applicant should replace “the planetary gears” with “planetary gears.” 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, 5-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US20190376596) in view of Graham (US20150105212). With regard to claim 1, Clark teaches a planet-carrier comprising: first 42 and second 44 cylindrical discs arranged coaxially with respect to a common axis of rotation, wherein each one of the first and second discs having a plurality of axial outer bores 53 extending parallel to the axis of rotation and aligned with each other, each one of the outer bores have been designed to accommodate planetary axles 46; and spacing elements 48 separate from and provided between so as to be in contact with the first and second discs, the spacing elements 48 being configured to maintain a defined spacing between the first and second discs; wherein the spacing elements are coupled with the first and second discs by fastening means 60; and wherein the spacing elements each have an inner bore 51 and the fastening means respectively extend through the inner bores of the spacing elements and through corresponding axial bores 41 in the first and second discs. Clark lacks the specific teaching of each one of the outer bores being configured to accommodate planetary bearings for supporting planetary gears 32 or for supporting the planetary axles 46. Graham teaches a similar planet-carrier comprising: first and second cylindrical discs 401/106, axial outer bores 119/120 being configured to accommodate planetary bearings 122 for supporting planetary gears or for supporting planetary axles 124, and spacing elements 116. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Clark to employ bearing in the axial bores in view of Graham with reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce wear between the axles and discs. With regard to claim 2, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the spacing elements 48 are detachably fastened to the first and second discs 42/44. With regard to claim 3, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the fastening elements 60 are subjected to tensile loading, and wherein the spacing elements are subjected to compressive loading, as a result of which a defined preloading state in the planet-carrier obtains, the preloading state counteracting operating loads and operating stresses (i.e. paragraph 99). With regard to claim 5, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the spacing elements 48 have a cylindrical shape or a polygonal shape (Fig. 6). With regard to claim 6, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the spacing elements 48 are arranged adjacent to an outer circumferential surface of the first and second discs (Fig. 5). With regard to claim 9, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the spacing elements 48 are formed from metal, synthetic material, and/or ceramic (paragraph 98). With regard to claim 10, Clark teaches the planet-carrier, wherein the first and second discs are identical to one another, and/or wherein the spacing elements 48 are identical to one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-8 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: the prior art of record fails to show or render obvious the planet-carrier as claimed, and particularly including additional fastening elements configured to couple the first and second discs, wherein the additional fastening elements extend through corresponding bores in the first and second discs and are adjacent to the spacing elements, and including the remaining structure of claim 7. Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 7.
Claim Interpretation
Planetary gears within a carrier have been interpreted as not reading on the claimed “spacing elements.” Applicant claims planetary gears and planetary axles, therefore the “spacing elements” are completely different elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bellman ‘203 has been cited to show a similar planet-carrier comprising: first and second discs 14/12, axial bores 26, planetary gears 16, spacing elements 18 that are hollow (Fig. 5) and comprise of metal (Col. 3, lines 9-10).
Wang ‘575 has been cited to show a similar planet-carrier comprising: first and second discs 12/14, axial bores 24 configured to accommodate bearings 22 for supporting planetary gears (Fig. 2),and spacing elements 18.
Kinter ‘119 has been cited to show a similar planet-carrier comprising: first and second discs 22/42, axial bores 26, planetary gears 16, spacing elements 18 that are hollow.
Burgman ‘449 has been cited to show a similar planet-carrier comprising: first and second discs 40/60, axial bores 42, planetary gears 76, spacing elements 56 that are hollow (Fig. 2), and fastening means 54.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
December 3, 2025
Prosecution Insights