DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action on the merits of Application No. 19/200,858 filed May 7, 2025. Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 7, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on May 7, 2025 are acceptable.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “buffer element” recited in claim 1, line 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The buffer element in claim 1 is interpreted to cover a clearance-fit spline coupling structure as described in paragraph [0020] and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-7 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.
The meaning of the phrase “capable of transmitting rotation at an arbitrary rotational angle” in claim 1, lines 12-13 and lines 19-20 is unclear.
Lines 12-18 of claim 1 define the first clutch mechanism (130) as being “capable of transmitting rotation at an arbitrary rotational angle through a wedging effect of a locking member arranged in a biased manner by biasing means between a first rotation element and a second rotation element provided coaxially and relatively rotatably and through a frictional force between the locking member and the first rotation element and the second rotation element”. This is consistent with the specification in paragraph [0015] which describes the first clutch mechanism 130 as being “capable of transmitting the rotation of the first shaft element 120 in one direction to the second shaft element 125 at an arbitrary rotational angle through the wedging effect of the cam 132 and the frictional force between the cam 132 and the outer ring 110 and the inner ring 115.” The “arbitrary rotational angle” is assumed to refer to the fact that the cam 132 can rotationally connect the outer ring 110 and inner ring 115 in an infinite number of positions relative to one another due to the frictional engagement of the cam with the inner and outer rings.
However, lines 19-23 of claim 1 define the second clutch mechanism (140) as also being “capable of transmitting rotation at an arbitrary rotational angle by engaging an engagement part of a first engagement element connected to the first rotation element and an engagement part of a second engagement element connected to the second rotation element”. This is not consistent with the specification in paragraph [0016] which describes the second clutch mechanism 140 as being “a ratchet-type one-way clutch capable of transmitting the rotation of the input shaft in the other direction to the output shaft at a prescribed rotational angle by engaging a ratchet pawl 142 and ratchet teeth 147.” The “prescribed rotational angle” is assumed to refer to the fact that the pawl 142 and teeth 147 can only engage in a plurality of discrete positions. As such, it is not clear how the second clutch mechanism can be said to be capable of transmitting rotation at an arbitrary rotational angle similarly to the first clutch mechanism.
In claim 1, line 28, and in claim 2, line 4, “the rotation element” is vague inasmuch as a first rotation element and a second rotation element were both previously recited in lines 15-16 of the claim.
Similarly in claim 2, line 3 it is unclear whether “the engagement element” is referring to the first engagement element or the second engagement element; and in line 4 it is unclear whether “the rotation element” is referring to the first rotation element or the second rotation element.
Claims 3-7 are also indefinites since they are dependent on the indefinite claims 1 and/or 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not disclose or render obvious a selectable clutch “having, in each of the first rotation transmission path and the second rotation transmission path, a buffer element that allows either or both of the first and second engagement elements to move in the circumferential direction relative to the rotation element to which the engagement element is connected” in combination with the other structure recited in independent claim 1.
U.S. Patent No. 2,005,389 discloses a selectable clutch in fig. 1 including an input shaft (13) and an output shaft (43); a first clutch mechanism (overrunning clutch 14) provided in a first rotation transmission path for transmitting rotation of the input shaft in one direction to the output shaft; a second clutch mechanism (formed by the ratchet teeth 14a, 22a) provided in a second rotation transmission path for transmitting rotation of the input shaft in the other direction to the output shaft; and an operating mechanism (35) configured to switch operation of either or both of the first clutch mechanism and the second clutch mechanism, the first clutch mechanism being capable of transmitting rotation through a wedging effect of a locking member (the member that contacts the inner circumference of the outer race of the overrunning clutch 14), and the second clutch mechanism being capable of transmitting rotation by engaging an engagement part (22a) of a first engagement element and an engagement part of a second engagement element (14a). However, the clutch disclosed in the ‘389 patent does not have, in each of the first and second transmission path, a buffer element that allows either or both of the first and second engagement elements to move in the circumferential direction relative to the rotation element to which the engagement element is connected as set forth in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 1,936,542 discloses a driving mechanism including a first clutch mechanism 8, and a second clutch mechanism having inclined teeth 6, 7.
U.S. Patent No. 2,340,368 discloses an automatic clutch including a first clutch mechanism having friction gripper members 25b, and a second clutch mechanism having pawls 22.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 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, John R. Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617