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 § 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 1, 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engerman et al. (US 11,415,208).
Engerman discloses and shows at Figs. 2, 3 and 8-10, for example, a multi-piece clutch gear assembly, comprising:
a helical gear (142); and
a clutch assembly (124) coupled to and arranged within an interior of the helical gear, wherein the helical gear is formed as a first piece and the clutch assembly is formed as a separate, second piece, wherein the clutch assembly is coupled to the helical gear at a retention interface between a first surface of the clutch assembly and a second surface of the helical gear (col. 6:11-48).
Engerman does not disclose the material makeup of the helical gar or clutch assembly. Yet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the claimed materials as 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. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) as described in MPEP 2144.07.
Cl. 3 – the helical gear comprises a ring (Fig. 8, item 136), a central hub (138), and a plate (134) formed as a single piece, wherein the clutch assembly is coupled to an interior surface of the ring (col. 6:11-48) and to an exterior surface of the central hub (col. 8:5-8).
Cl. 4 – in a single clutch arrangement, the clutch assembly comprises a clutch interface positioned towards a first side of the clutch gear assembly and a central hub (140) of the multi-piece clutch gear assembly is positioned more towards a second, opposing side of the clutch gear assembly than the clutch interface.
Cl. 5 – in a dual clutch arrangement, the clutch assembly comprises a first clutch interface (124) positioned towards a first side of the clutch gear assembly and a second clutch interface (224) positioned towards a second, opposing side of the clutch gear assembly.
Cl. 6 – the helical gear comprises a plurality of teeth (146) at an outer surface thereof configured to mesh with another gear.
Cl. 7-8 – Engerman does not disclose the material makeup of the helical gar or clutch assembly. Yet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select one of the claimed materials as 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. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) as described in MPEP 2144.07.
Cl. 10 – the helical gear and the clutch assembly are configured to be affixed to each other at the retention interface via press fitting, a spline interface, or welding (col. 6:11-48).
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engerman et al. (US 11,415,208).
Engerman discloses and shows at Figs. 2, 3 and 8-10, for example, a clutch gear assembly, comprising:
a helical gear (142) comprising a ring (Fig. 8, item 136), a central hub (138), and a plate (134), wherein the central hub is arranged within an interior of the ring along a shared axis of rotation; and
a clutch assembly (124) comprising at least one clutch interface, wherein the clutch assembly is coupled to the helical gear at a first retention interface between an exterior surface of the clutch assembly (col. 6:11-48) and an interior surface of the ring and at a second retention interface between an interior surface of the clutch assembly and an exterior surface of the central hub (col. 8:5-8).
Cl. 12 – the central hub comprises an open passage there through, configured to receive a shaft.
Cl. 13 – the at least one clutch interface comprises a plurality of notches (i.e., splines, not shown, col. 6:11-48)).
Cl. 14 – the at least one clutch interface comprises a first clutch interface at a first side of the clutch gear assembly.
Cl. 15 – the at least one clutch interface comprises a second clutch interface at a second side of the clutch gear assembly opposite the first side (and attached to helical gear 234).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states the still relied upon reference to Engerman does not include a helical gear separate from the clutch assembly and that the clutch assembly is integral to the body of the gear according to the text within the reference, see pages 7-9 of the Remarks.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Engerman refers to item 133 as a “housing 133 having a web portion 134 connecting a radially outer first annular hub 136, a radially inner second annular hub 138”. Terms “web” and “hub” are terms typically used to describe parts of a gear. Nonetheless, no matter what Engerman calls item 133, it is a gear and one having ordinary skill in the art would not refer to it as anything other than gear, cog or sprocket.
As to the second matter at page 9 of the Remarks, Examiner, in a further review of the Engerman reference, found the clutch assembly is indeed coupled to the helical gear at a retention interface between a first surface of the clutch assembly and a second assembly of the helical gear.
As to the third matter at page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant refers to their specification to cite, “the clutch portion and the helical gear portion may thus be formed of different materials, if so desired”. The “if so desired” proves there is no criticality to the different materials, and, as such, a rejection base on case law is allowable in accordance with MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) which details claim limitations with no unexpected result (criticality) (see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), In re Kuhle, 526 Fx2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RUSHING, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8AM-5PM 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) 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 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.
/BOBBY RUSHING, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights