DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 04/21/2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/21/2025 and 03/26/2026 were filed and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 2 reads “the number”, --a number-- is suggested.
Claim 13 line 3 reads “the number”, --a number-- is suggested.
Claim 18 line 2 reads “the number”, --a number-- is suggested.
Claim 18 line 3 reads “the number”, --a number-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 lines 1-3 recite the limitation “A power transmission device, in which a first gear and a second gear composed of helical gears are disposed coaxially to be movable in at least opposing directions and are accommodated in a case”. It is unclear if “ in which” is used as a transitional phrase, or if another word is intended as such. It is unclear which portion of the claim is intended to be the preamble and which portions are intended to be claim limiting recitations. Based on the rest of the claim, and for the purpose of this Office Action, “in which” is being treated as the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”.
Claim 1 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “a first gear and a second gear composed of helical gears”. It is unclear if the first gear and the second gear are helical gears or if the first and second gears are made up of a plurality of helical gears.
Claim 1 lines 4-5 recites the limitation “the first gear and the second gear are respectively engaged with gears connected to a torque generating source”. It is unclear if the first and second gears are engaged with the same gears or different gears.
Claim 1 lines 6-8 recite the limitation “angles of each helical tooth of the first gear and the second gear are respectively set such that thrust forces in opposing directions are respectively generated at the first gear and the second gear during transmitting”. It is unclear if the thrust forces in opposing directions are generated on each of the first and second gear, or if the thrust forces are generated on each of the first and second gear.
Claim 1 lines 10-11 recite the limitation “the first gear and the second gear are fitted coaxially to generate a specific maximum static friction”. It is unclear if the first and second gear are fitted coaxially together or if they are fitted to another element. Additionally, it is unclear which elements generate static friction.
Claim 1 line 12 recites the limitation “opposing directions”. It is unclear if these are the same directions recited in line 2 or if two additional directions are required.
Claim 1 lines 12-13, claim 2 lines 6-7, claim 2 lines 8-9, claim 5 lines 2-3, claim 5 lines 5-6, claim 6 lines 2-3, claim 6 lines 5-6, claim 7 lines 4-5 and claim 8 line 5 recite the limitation “in a case where”. It is unclear if the limitations following “in a case where” are optional or if they are required.
Claim 1 line 13 recites the limitation “opposing directions”. It is unclear if these are the same directions recited in line 2, or line 12 or if two additional directions are required.
Claim 2 line 2 recites the limitation “outward directions” and line 4 recites the limitation “inward directions”. It is unclear what element these directions are outward or inward of. Additionally, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to any of the “opposing directions” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires additional directions.
Claim 3 line 2 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a torque” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 3 line 2 recites the limitation “a negative direction. It is unclear what is required to be a negative direction.
Claim 3 line 3 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a torque” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 3 line 3 recites the limitation “a positive direction. It is unclear what is required to be a positive direction.
Claim 4 line 2 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a torque” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 4 line 2 recites the limitation “a negative direction. It is unclear what is required to be a negative direction.
Claim 4 line 3 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to “a torque” recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 4 line 3 recites the limitation “a positive direction. It is unclear what is required to be a positive direction.
Claim 5 line 4 recites the limitation “a specific first torque”. It is unclear what is required to be a specific first torque.
Claim 5 line 6 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a torque recited in claim 1 or claim 3, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 5 lines 6-7 recite the limitation “a specific second torque”. It is unclear what is required to be a specific second torque.
Claim 5 line 8 recites the limitation “opposing directions”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the opposing directions recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires additional directions.
Claim 6 line 4 recites the limitation “a specific first torque”. It is unclear what is required to be a specific first torque.
Claim 6 line 6 recites the limitation “a torque”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to a torque recited in claim 1 or claim 3, or if this limitation requires an additional torque.
Claim 6 lines 6-7 recite the limitation “a specific second torque”. It is unclear what is required to be a specific second torque.
Claim 6 line 8 recites the limitation “opposing directions”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the opposing directions recited in claim 1, or if this limitation requires additional directions.
Claim 7 line 2 recites the limitation “an absolute value of a total value of thrust forces toward the inward directions”. First, it is unclear what is required to be “a total value of thrust forces”. Second, it is unclear what is required to be an inward direction.
Accordingly, from the above, the claims and disclosure are generally narrative and indefinite, appearing to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. A great deal of confusion and uncertainty exists as to the proper interpretation of the claim limitations. In accordance with MPEP § 2173 the examiner has applied the prior art elsewhere below under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 in as best as the claims can be understood in the interest of compact prosecution. However, any detailed mapping of the art to the claims as currently written would be improper since such would require undue speculation as to the intended meaning/scope of the claims. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hydraulic Coupling Patents (FR 918931 A).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hydraulic Coupling Patents discloses a power transmission device (see Fig. 1), in which a first gear (13) and a second gear (17) composed of helical gears are disposed coaxially to be movable in at least opposing directions (see Fig. 1a-1f) and are accommodated in a case (37), the first gear and the second gear are respectively engaged with gears (21, 23) connected to a torque generating source (see Fig. 6; 35), and angles of each helical tooth of the first gear and the second gear are respectively set such that thrust forces in opposing directions are respectively generated at the first gear and the second gear during transmitting, by the first gear and the second gear, a torque from the torque generating source (see Fig. 1), wherein the first gear and the second gear are fitted coaxially to generate a specific maximum static friction (static friction between gears 13, 17 and shaft 10), and the first gear and the second gear respectively move in opposing directions in a case where an absolute value of a total value of the thrust forces in opposing directions of the first gear and the second gear exceeds an absolute value of the maximum static friction (see Fig. 1a, wherein 13, 17 are moved outward and see Fig. 1b, wherein 13, 17 are moved inward).
Regarding claims 2-20, as best understood, Hydraulic Coupling Patents explicitly or inherently discloses the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 20180328454 A1, FR 2742205 A1 and DE 3708100 A1 disclose transmission mechanisms with moving helical gears.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights