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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 3, line 21 recites “external annular portion 5”. Page 5, lines 9/10 recite “cup element 5”. Page 4, line 9 recites “upper end portion 6e”. Page 8, line 24 recites “end wall 6e”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 4, line 3 recites “…crown 4 through support means 3.” It should be --…crown 3 through support means 4.--
Appropriate correction is required.
These examples of inconsistent nomenclature and wrong element numbers are just a few of numerous others found. Examiner suggests reviewing the entire Specification for accuracy.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-13 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, lines 5/6 recite “said first portion being radially comprised around said axis (A) by said crown…”. It is unclear how said first portion is radially comprised. Comprised doesn’t appear to be the correct word. Are applicants claiming a location of said crown?
Claim 1 is 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. Lines 9/10 recite “said support means being placed so as to radially match said profile,”. It is unclear how the support means (bearing) radially matches the profile (3b) of crown (3). It appears the profile (grooves) are radially further from axis (A) than the support means (4). Do applicants mean axially match said profile along axis (A)?
Claim 1 is 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. Lines 11/12 recite “wherein said filtering unit….and axially faces said crown,” It is unclear how a filtering unit faces a particular direction. What feature of the filtering unit determines which way it faces?
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “said support means…….and said rolling bearing are at the same radial distance…”. It is unclear what is being claimed. Is it support means or a rolling bearing? A rolling bearing has not been introduced. For examination purposes examiner interprets “said support means are at the same radial distance from said axis (A).”
Claims 12 and 13 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. Claims 12 and 13 recite “said mechanical connections…” Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 7 that recites “a mechanical connection.” It is unclear what mechanical connections (plural) are being claimed since claim 7 recites a mechanical connection (singular).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tran et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0091048.
As per claim 1, Tran et al. disclose a filtering pulley (200) [isolator] (figs. 13-18)comprising;
a hub (214) adapted to be fixed to a shaft (253a) rotating around an axis (A) (AA),
a crown (212) [rotary drive member] mounted coaxially and rotationally free on said hub (214), and
a filtering unit (216) [isolation spring arrangement] (fig. 14) operatively interposed between said hub (214) and said crown (212),
wherein said hub (214) comprising a first portion (fig. E-1) and a second portion (fig. E-1), said first portion being radially comprised around said axis (A) by said crown (212), and said pulley (200) comprising support means (215) [bushing] for supporting said crown (212) on said hub (214), said support means (215) being the only element radially interposed between said first portion (fig. E-1) and said crown (212),
wherein said crown (212) defines a profile with grooves (213) [endless drive member engagement surface], said support means (215) being placed so as to radially match said profile (213),
wherein said filtering unit (216) is operatively interposed between said hub (214) and said crown (212) around said second portion (fig. E-1) of the hub and axially faces said crown (212), and
said filtering unit (216) comprises:
a housing (276) [spring shell] connected, integrally with the rotation, to one of said hub and said crown (212), and
an actuator (26) [driver] connected, integrally with the rotation, to the other one of said hub (214) (figs. 14, 15) and said crown,
wherein said housing (276) defining a space (fig. E-1) to house elastic means (216) operatively interposed between said actuator (26) and said crown (212).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said support means (215) are placed at a line of symmetry of said profile (213) (fig. 15).
As per claim 4, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said housing (276) has a maximum diameter (R"') (fig. 15) around said axis (A) (AA) greater than the average diameter (R') of said profile (213) of said crown (212) (fig. 15).
As per claim 5, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose the average actuation diameter (R") (fig. 15) of said actuator (26) around said axis (A) (AA) is greater than the average diameter (R') of said profile (213) of said crown (212) (fig. 15).
As per claim 6, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said actuator (26) comprises a hub portion (splined hub portion shown in fig. 14)) carried by said second end (fig. E-1) of said hub (214) and a plurality of spokes (flange portions of actuator 26 shown in figs. 14, 15) configured to cooperate in contact with said elastic means (216), said plurality of spokes being connected to said hub portion via a mechanical connection (unitary construction).
As per claim 7, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said housing (276) comprises a first and a second element (276a, 276b) connected to each other to define said space (fig. E-1), one of said first and second elements (276a) is connected to one of said hub and said crown (212) via a mechanical connection (figs. 14, 15). First element (276a) is connected to crown (212).
As per claim 8, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said mechanical connections (unitary construction) comprise a threaded, riveted or shaped connection (unitary construction). The unitary construction of actuator (26) between the splined ring and the spokes (fig. 14) is a shaped connection at their intersection.
As per claim 9, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said mechanical connections are coaxial with each other (figs. 14, 15).
As per claim 10, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said support means (215) are placed at a line of symmetry of said profile (213) (fig. 15) and said mechanical connections (unitary construction) and said support means (215) are at the same radial distance from said axis (A) (AA) (fig. 15).
As per claim 11, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said first and second portions (fig. E-1) of said hub (214) are separated by a flange portion (fig. E-1)) configured to act as a shoulder for said support means (215).
As per claim 12, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said mechanical connections (figs. 14, 15) comprise a threaded, riveted or shaped connection (fig. E-1). First element 276a fits into the stepped portion of crown 212)
As per claim 13, Tran et al. as set forth above, disclose said mechanical connections (figs. 14, 15) are coaxial with each other (figs. 14, 15). Mechanical connections are coaxial around axis (AA)
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al., U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0091048.
As per claim 3, Tran et al. as set forth above, discloses the claimed invention except for said support means comprise at least one rolling bearing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute a roller bearing over a bushing for optimal performance and durability since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalents of bushings and roller bearings for their use in the filtering pulley art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to support the crown would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK KENNETH BUSE whose telephone number is (571)270-3139. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 571 272-2097. 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.
/M.K.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ROBERT W HODGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights