DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed May 11, 2026 for the above identified patent application.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in United Kingdom on June 17, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the UK application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) 1-5, 7-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Justice (USP 4,291,588).
Justice teaches a gearbox for (capable of being used with) a generator, the gearbox comprising: an input shaft (88) coupled to an input gear (98); an output shaft (89) coupled to an output gear (104); a first layshaft (100) coupled to a first pair of splitter gears (99,103), wherein one of the first pair of splitter gears is configured to mesh with the input gear and the other of the first pair of splitter gears is configured to mesh with the output gear; and a second layshaft (100) coupled to a second pair of splitter gears (99,103), wherein one of the second pair of splitter gears is configured to mesh with the input gear and the other of the second pair of splitter gears is configured to mesh with the output gear, wherein the input gear, the output gear, each of the first pair of splitter gears, and each of the second pair of splitter gears is positioned between a pair of bearings (94,95, or 101).
Claim 2: Justice teaches the input shaft and the output shaft are arranged along a first axis (Fig. 17), the input shaft being axially spaced from the output shaft.
Claim 3: Justice illustrates each of the first layshaft and the second layshaft are arranged parallel to the first axis.
Claim 4: Justice illustrates (Fig. 17) the first layshaft is arranged along a second axis and the second layshaft is arranged along a third axis, each of the second axis and the third axis being parallel to the first axis.
Claim 5: Justice illustrates (Fig. 19) each of the first axis, second axis, and third axis are arranged within a same plane.
Claim 7: Justice teaches a maximum allowable twist of at least one of the input shaft, output shaft, first layshaft, or second layshaft is one degree for a predetermined torque input.
Claim 8: Justice illustrates a length of each of the first layshaft and the second layshaft is less than a combined length of the input shaft and the output shaft.
Claim 9: As described above, Justice teaches a gearbox capable of being used with a generator and an engine.
Claim 10: Justice teaches the input shaft is in line with the output shaft.
Claim 11: Justice illustrates the first layshaft is disposed on a first side of each of the input shaft and the output shaft, and wherein the second layshaft is disposed on a second side of each of the input shaft and the output shaft, the first side being opposite the second side.
Claim 12: Justice teaches a power received by each of the first layshaft and the second layshaft is between one third and two thirds of the input power.
Claim 13: Justice illustrates (Fig. 19) each of the input shaft, output shaft, first layshaft, and second layshaft are arranged in a same plane.
Claim 15: As described above, Justice teaches a gearbox, including first and second splitter gears, and first and second combination gears.
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) 6, 14, 16, 17, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice (USP 4,291,588).
Justice does not disclose the specific ratio between the input and output gear. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the size the gears of Justice to produce a desired speed reduction, such as 1.2:1 or 1.5:1; since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. For example, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to configure the gearbox of Justice to produce a speed reduction of 1.2:1 or 1.5:1; motivation being to drive an output device at a predetermined speed to produce a desired outcome.
Justice does not teach the input gear and the output gear are respectively coupled to the input shaft and the output shaft via a spline connection. However, connecting a gear to a shaft with a spline connection was notoriously known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to connect the input and output gears to respective shafts of Justice, with a spline connection, as was notoriously known in the art, motivation being to provide a rotational coupling capable of transmitting a predetermined torque between components.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice (USP 4,291,588), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mosher (USP 533,394).
Justice does not teach a maximum allowable twist of at least one of the input shaft, output shaft, first layshaft, or second layshaft is one degree. However, it was known in the art to configure a transmission so as to prevent twisting of a transmission shaft. For example, Mosher teaches a clutch device (B’) disposed between a shaft A’ and a gear (B) for preventing twisting of the transmission components. Mosher discloses “should the driven part be suddenly and unexpectedly stopped, the plate will yield and permit the driving shaft to continue its rotation without breaking or twisting any of the parts, as would be the case were the connection between the driving and driven members A and B a rigid one.” Lines 34-44. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the transmission of Justice with a clutch device between the shaft(s) and gear(s), as taught by Mosher, motivation being to prevent twisting of the shafts if the transmission is overloaded.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justice (USP 4,291,588), as applied to claim 15 above, in further view of Wolff et al. (USPub 2010/0294585).
Justice does not disclose the gearbox used to connect an engine to a generator. However, it was known to use a gearbox as defined by the claims. For example, Wolff teaches a combustion engine (32) connected to an input shaft of a gearbox (36), an output shaft of the gearbox connected to a generator (34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claimed device to use the gearbox of Justice for connecting an engine to a generator, as taught by Wolff, motivation being to provide an electric power generating device that operates at a predetermined speed.
Wolff does not require a specific engine, but discloses a combustion reciprocating engine (32) for driving the generator. It was notorious well known in the art to configure an engine to operate with a gaseous fuel, such as propane, for providing an engine having reduced emissions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the generator arrangement of Justice modified with Wolff, as described above, with a known reciprocating engine that uses propane, motivation being to drive the generator with an engine having reduced emissions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the cited gear devices having splitter gears.
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 WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights