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 § 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 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wink [US Pub # 2025/0137520 filed on 09/06/2022].
Regarding claim 1: Wink shows a gear (300) with a reference diameter (5) of greater than or equal to 1.5 m, comprising: a gear hub (302), and a gear rim (306), wherein the gear hub (302) and the gear rim (306) are releasably connected to one another, wherein the gear hub (302) comprises a plurality of elements welded together (310).
Regarding claim 2: Wink shows wherein the gear rim (306) comprises a herringbone toothing, or a double helical toothing, or a straight toothing.
Regarding claim 3: Wink shows wherein the plurality of elements (310) of the gear hub (302) comprises a structural steel according to DIN EN 10025.
Regarding claim 4: Wink shows wherein the gear rim (3) is made of a heat-treated steel according to DIN EN 10083, or of a case-hardened steel according to DIN EN 10084, or of a nitriding steel according to DIN EN 10085 (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 9: Wink shows wherein the gear rim (308) is shrunk onto the gear hub (302).
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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink [US Pub # 2025/0137520 filed on 09/06/2022]].
Regarding claim 5: Wink shows wherein the gear rim (306) has a chromium content (see [0038], lines 15-16) of greater than or equal to 1.05%. Wink is silent about the percentage of chromium content of greater or equal to 1.05% however it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have chosen an adequate percentage of chromium content by routine experiment to figure out the optimal percentage needed to make durable gear rim.
Regarding claim 8: Wink shows wherein the gear hub (302) comprises at least one flank (see second embodiment) with a material thickness of greater than or equal to 15 mm.
Wink does not disclose a height difference between the step parts. As claimed device would not perform different than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device based on the claimed relative dimensions. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Wink to include material thickness of greater than or equal to 15 mm, as the relative dimension of the step height would cause the device of Sung to function as disclosed.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 11, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink [US Pub # 2025/0137520 filed on 09/06/2022]] in view of Car [WO 9831953].
Regarding 6,7, 10-11: Wink shows wherein the gear rim (308) a shoulder (see fig 3A) in an inwardly directed region, wherein the gear hub (302) and the gear rim (308) are connected to one another in operative connection with the shoulder. Wink does not explicitly show wherein the gear rim has a manganese content of greater than or equal to 0.5%. wherein the gear hub comprises a coupling seat, designed as a turned flat surface, wherein the coupling seat comprises a bolt circle. wherein the gear hub and the gear rim are connected to one another by means of at least one fitting bolt. Connection to shoulder by means of at least one expansion screw.
wherein the gear has further comprises an acceleration sensor.
However Car shows wherein the gear rim has a manganese content of greater than or equal to 0.5% (“…The high hardenability steel which is utilized in the outer layer of the gear rim into which the gear teeth will be cut consists of a alloy steel will have a carbon equivalency of greater than about 0.4, and preferably greater than about 0.6, and will have amounts of other alloy materials such as manganese, nickel, chromium or molybdenum…”). wherein the gear hub comprises a coupling seat (11a, 12a), designed as a turned flat surface, wherein the coupling seat comprises a bolt circle (“…The arcs are bolted together at joint plates 11a and 11b…”). wherein the gear hub and the gear rim (14) are connected to one another by means of at least one fitting bolt. Connection to shoulder by means of at least one expansion screw.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have attached gear rim with bolt to securely fix the gear rim to the hub.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wink [US Pub # 2025/0137520 filed on 09/06/2022] in view of Cahen [WO 2021144135].
Regarding claim 12: Wink does not disclose wherein the gear has further comprises an acceleration sensor. However Cahen show wherein the gear has further comprises an acceleration sensor ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have added an accelerator sensor to monitor the gear operation.
Regarding claims 13-14: Wink shows a method for producing a gear (300) with a reference diameter (5) of greater than or equal to 1.5 m, the gear comprising with a gear hub (302) and with a gear rim (308), in which the gear hub (302) is produced by means of a welded construction (see claim 26), in which the gear rim (308) is produced by means of a closed circumferential ring part, and in which the gear hub (302) and Wink does not show the gear rim are then firmly but releasably connected to one another by means of a force- locking connection and/or by means of a fitting bolt connection and/or by means of an expansion screw connection , wherein boresin the gear for the fitting bolt connection and/or for the expansion screw connection between the reference circle of the gear and the frictional or force-locking connection are introduced into the gear. However Car shows another by means of a force- locking connection and/or by means of a fitting bolt connection (“…The arcs are bolted together at joint plates 11a and 11b…”)/or by means of an expansion screw connection, wherein bores in the gear for the fitting bolt connection (“…The arcs are bolted together at joint plates 11a and 11b…”). and/or for the expansion screw connection between the reference circle of the gear and the frictional or force-locking connection are introduced into the gear.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have attached gear rim with bolt to securely fix the gear rim to the hub.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example [US 2018/0058567] shows gear rim (200b) and gear hub (150) attached to the gear rim by bolts (201).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights