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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 21 April 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the disc springs must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,979,268 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Peters discloses a drive shaft assembly for a supercharger (see Fig. 1), the drive shaft assembly comprising:
a shaft (14) centered on and extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), the shaft comprising a first end (end of 14 with 22) and a second end (end of 14 with 46) opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1);
a first spline coupling (26) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1a), the first spline coupling comprising a front surface (A in annotated Figure 1 below) and a plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) extending in a direction away from the front surface and away from the second end of the shaft (see Fig. 1);
a second spline coupling (28) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1a) and configured to slidably engage with the first spline coupling (see Fig. 1a), the second spline coupling comprising a back surface (B in annotated Figure 1 below) and a plurality of second teeth (30 on 28) extending in a direction away from the back surface (see Fig. 1) and away from the first end of the shaft and towards the first teeth (see Fig. 1);
a spring (42) mounted on the shaft exerting a spring force against the first spline coupling such that the spring biases the first spline coupling into engagement with the second spline coupling (see Fig. 1), the spring having a spring constant (see Fig. 1); and
a contact radius (C in annotated Figure 1 below) defined by a distance between the longitudinal axis and an outer edge of the front surface of the first spline coupling;
wherein, the spring constant of the spring is selected based on the contact radius;
wherein when the first spline coupling and the second spline coupling are engaged, each first tooth in the plurality of first teeth is engaged with a corresponding second tooth in the plurality of second teeth (see Figs. 1-1a); and
wherein, when a rotational load applied to the first spline coupling exceeds a frictional force defined between the plurality of first teeth and the plurality of second teeth, then the interface between the plurality of first teeth and the plurality of second teeth converts the rotational load into a linear load along the longitudinal axis, and the linear load compresses the spring such that the first spline coupling slidably disengages from the second spline coupling and each first tooth slidably disengages from its corresponding second tooth (see Column 5 lines 8-14).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of the spring constant being selected based on the contact radius are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 1 is that the spring constant is capable of being selected based on the contact radius.
PNG
media_image1.png
610
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
275
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 1.
Regarding claim 2, Peters discloses wherein, when the first spline coupling (26) disengages from the second spline coupling (28), the plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) rotates with respect to the plurality of second teeth (30 on 28, see Column 5 lines 8-14, and Fig. 3), and wherein, when the linear load is less than the spring force, the first spline coupling reengages with the second spline coupling and each first tooth engages with a corresponding second tooth (see Fig. 2 and Column 2 lines 21-35).
Regarding claim 3, Peters discloses further comprising a collar (44) mounted on the shaft (14) and coupled to the spring (42), and a lever (46) coupled to the collar, wherein when the collar moves in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, the first spline coupling disengages from the second spline coupling (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of when the collar moves in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, the first spline coupling disengages from the second spline coupling, are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 3 is that the first and second spline couplings are capable of disengaging when the collar moves parallel to the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 7, Peters discloses a drive shaft assembly for a supercharger (see Fig. 1), the drive shaft assembly comprising:
a shaft (14) centered on and extending along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), the shaft comprising a first end (end of 14 with 22) and a second end (end of 14 with 46) opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1);
a spline coupling (26, 28) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1), the spline coupling comprising:
a first face spline (26) comprising a front surface (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and a plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) extending in a direction away from the front surface and away from the second end of the shaft (see Fig. 1); and
a second face spline (28) configured to engage with the first face spline (see Fig. 1), the second face spline comprising back surface (B in annotated Figure 1 above) and a plurality of second teeth (30 on 28) extending in a direction away from the back surface (see Fig. 1) and away from the first end of the shaft and towards the first teeth (see Fig. 1), the plurality of second teeth configured to slidably engage with the plurality of first teeth (see Fig. 1);
wherein each first tooth in the plurality of first teeth has a top surface (flat surface on each tooth 30 located between each pair of ramp surfaces 50) spaced a distance from the front surface (see Figs. 1-3), and an outer surface (50) extending between the front surface and the top surface (see Figs. 1-3), the outer surface defining a plane that radially extends away from the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-3);
wherein each outer surface defines a contact angle (see Figs. 1-3), the contact angle measured between a plane defined by the front surface and the outer surface (see Figs. 1-3); and
a spring (42) mounted on the shaft, the spring exerting a force against the spline coupling such that the spring biases the first face spline into engagement with the second face spline (see Fig. 1), the spring having a spring rate (see Fig. 1), wherein the spring rate of the spring is selected based on the contact angle;
wherein, when the first face spline and second face spline are engaged, each first tooth in the plurality of first teeth is engaged with a corresponding second tooth the plurality of second teeth (see Figs. 1-1a); and
wherein when a rotational load applied to the first face spline exceeds a frictional force defined between the plurality of first teeth and the plurality of second teeth, then the interface between the plurality of first teeth and the plurality of second teeth biases the first face spline and second face spline apart from each other such that the spring compresses allowing the second teeth to slidably disengage from the first teeth (see Column 5 lines 8-14 and Fig. 3).
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of the spring rate of the spring is selected based on the contact angle are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 7 is that the spring rate is capable of being selected based on the contact angle.
Regarding claim 8, Peters discloses wherein the contact angle is less than 90 degrees (see Column 7 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 9, Peters discloses wherein the contact angle is greater than or equal to 30 degrees and is less than or equal to 60 degrees (see Column 7 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 15, Peters discloses a drive shaft assembly for a supercharger (see Fig. 1), the drive shaft assembly comprising:
a shaft (14) extending along and centered on a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), the shaft comprising a first end (end of 14 with 22) and a second end (end of 14 with 46) opposite the first end along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1);
a first spline coupling (26) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1a), the first spline coupling comprising a front surface (A in annotated Figure 1 above) and a plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) extending from the front surface away from the second end of the shaft in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1);
a second spline coupling (28) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1a) and configured to engage with the first spline coupling (see Fig. 1), the second spline coupling comprising a back surface (B in annotated Figure 1 above) and a plurality of second teeth (30 on 28) extending from the back surface away from the first end of the shaft and towards the first teeth in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1); and
a spring (42) mounted on the shaft (see Fig. 1), the spring exerting a force against the first spline coupling such that the spring biases the first spline coupling into engagement with the second spline coupling (see Fig. 1);
wherein, when a rotational load is applied to the first spline coupling and the first spline coupling and second spline coupling are engaged, the interface between the plurality of first teeth and the plurality of second teeth transmits the rotational load from the first spline coupling to the second spline coupling such that the first spline coupling and the second spline coupling rotate around the longitudinal axis at the same rate (see Figs. 2-3 and Column 2 lines 1-35);
wherein, when the rotational load is sufficiently high, the interface between the plurality of first teeth and plurality of second teeth biases the first spline coupling and second spline coupling apart from each other, and compresses the spring (see Column 2 lines 21-35); and
wherein when the spring is compressed, the plurality of first teeth slidably disengage from the plurality of second teeth such that the first spline coupling and the second spline coupling are able to rotate around the longitudinal axis at different rates (see Column 2 lines 21-35).
Regarding claim 16, Peters discloses wherein the first spline coupling (26) is centered on the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1) and second spline coupling (28) is centered on the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), wherein each first tooth of the plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) is equally spaced from each other and radially positioned around the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-3), and wherein each second tooth in plurality of second teeth (30 on 28) is equally spaced from each other and radially positioned around the longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Peters discloses further comprising a collar (44) mounted on the shaft (14) and coupled to the spring (42), and a lever (46) coupled to the collar, wherein when the collar moves in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, the first spline coupling disengages from the second spline coupling.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of when the collar moves in a direction substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis, the first spline coupling disengages from the second spline coupling, are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 18 is that the first and second spline couplings are capable of disengaging when the collar moves parallel to the longitudinal axis.
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(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,979,268 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Peters discloses wherein the plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) is made from a first material and the plurality of second teeth (30 on 28) are made from a second material, but fails to disclose as claimed that the first material and the second material are the same.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive shaft assembly of Peters, such that it comprises first and second teeth being made of the same material, in order to prevent either set of teeth from having a higher likelihood of failure during high torque applications.
Regarding claim 20, Peters teaches the first material and the second material as being the same material, but fails to disclose as claimed that the first and second material are hardened steel.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive shaft assembly of Peters, such that it comprises the first and second material both being hardened steel, in order to provide a splined connection that can withstand extreme torsional forces applied thereto.
Claim(s) 4, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,979,268 B2) in view of Downey (US 2008/0015034 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Peters discloses a spring (42), but fails to disclose as claimed that the spring is a disc spring comprising a plurality of discs.
However, Downey teaches a drive shaft assembly that can comprise a coil spring (152) or a stack of disc springs (see paragraph [0019]), in order to provide an alternative to the coil spring for instances in which coil springs are difficult to acquire or higher cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive shaft assembly of Peters, with Downey, such that it comprises a stack of disc springs, in order to provide a spring that can adjusted by adding or removing individual disc springs without needing to replace the entire spring system.
Regarding claim 10, Peters discloses a spring (42), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the spring is a disc spring comprising a plurality of discs.
However, Downey teaches a drive shaft assembly that can comprise a coil spring (152) or a stack of disc springs (see paragraph [0019]), in order to provide an alternative to the coil spring for instances in which coil springs are difficult to acquire or higher cost.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive shaft assembly of Peters, with Downey, such that it comprises a stack of disc springs, in order to provide a spring that can adjusted by adding or removing individual disc springs without needing to replace the entire spring system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Peters and Downey teaches wherein each first tooth (30 on 26 of Peters) in the plurality of first teeth has a depth (H of Peters) defined by the distance between the top surface (flat surface on each tooth 30 of Peters located between each pair of ramp surfaces 50 of Peters) and the front surface (A in annotated Figure 1 above), and wherein a number of discs in the plurality of discs is determined based on the depth of the first teeth and a spring load of the spring.
Applicant is reminded that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, all the process limitations of a number of discs is determined based on the depth of the first teeth and a spring load of the spring are given limited patentable weight, all that is required of claim 11 is that the number of discs is capable of being determined based on the depth of the first teeth and a spring load of the spring.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Peters and Downey teaches wherein the depth (H of Peters) is about 0.25 inches, but fails to teach as claimed that the depth is greater than or equal to 0.02 inches and is less than or equal to 0.04 inches.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. depth) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Peters and Downey, such that it comprises a depth greater than or equal to 0.02 inches and is less than or equal to 0.04 inches, in order to provide a drive shaft assembly that can transmit torque while reducing the likelihood of having a spline tooth failing or shearing during applied loads.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Peters and Downey teaches a spring stack arrangement (see paragraph [0019] of Downey), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the plurality of discs comprises a 7 parallel spring stack arrangement.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (i.e. spring stack) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Peters and Downey, such that it comprises a 7 spring stack arrangement, in order to provide a spring stack sufficient to transmit desired torque while also allowing slip of the coupling when excess torque is applied.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,979,268 B2) in view of Bawks (US 2009/0011890 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Peters discloses a plurality of first teeth (30 on 26) and second teeth (30 on 28), but fails to disclose as claimed wherein the plurality of first teeth comprises at least 10 teeth, and wherein the plurality of second teeth comprises at least 10 teeth.
However, Bawks teaches a splined connection comprising 20 teeth (112, see Fig. 8)
Applicant is reminded that duplicating the components of a prior art device, wherein there is no structural or functional significance as to the specific number of an element disclosed, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive shaft assembly disclosed by Peters, with Bawks, to comprise at least 10 teeth as Peters does not disclose any structural or functional significance as to the specific number of teeth, other than that the teeth are spaced equidistantly from one another in the radial direction, and as such practice is a design consideration within the skill of the art which would yield expected and predictable results.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US 6,979,268 B2) and Downey (US 2008/0015034 A1) and further in view of Leonard (US 4,062,203 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Peters and Downey teaches the plurality of disc springs are stacked (see paragraph [0019] of Downey), but fails to teach as claimed that the springs are stacked in sets, and wherein each set of disc springs has a spring load greater than or equal to 200 lbs.
However, Leonard teaches a drive shaft assembly comprising disc springs (69) stacked in sets (see Fig. 1), in order to provide a means to minimize the amount of space that the stack of springs takes up.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Peters and Downey, with Leonard, such that it comprises disc springs stacked in sets, in order to provide a means to minimize the amount of space that the stack of springs takes up.
The combination teaches a spring load, but still fails to teach as claimed that each set of disc springs has a spring load greater than or equal to 200 lbs.
Applicant is reminded that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim (i.e. spring load) are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Peters, Downey, and Leonard, such that each set of disc springs comprises a spring load equal to 200 lbs, in order to provide sets of springs capable of being stacked to withstand high torsional forces applied to drive shaft assemblies without failure.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Peters, Downey, and Leonard teaches wherein each set of disc springs has a spring load of no more than 350lbs (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Peters and Downey teaches a stack of disc springs (see paragraph [0019] of Downey), but fails to teach as claimed that the plurality of discs comprises a 3 series spring stack arrangement.
However, Leonard teaches a drive shaft assembly comprising a 3 series spring stack arrangement (69, see Fig. 1), in order to provide a spring stack sufficient to transmit desired torque while also allowing slip of the coupling when excess torque is applied.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Peters and Downey, with Leonard, such that it comprises a 3 series spring stack arrangement, in order to provide a spring stack sufficient to transmit desired torque while also allowing slip of the coupling when excess torque is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY A HALL whose telephone number is (571)272-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 8:00am to 4:00pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached on 571-270-5281. 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.
/ZAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights