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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29 remain pending in the application.
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 22 and 24 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 22 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the magnetic source includes a permanent magnet”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the permanent magnet recited in claim 21, or if this limitation requires an additional permanent magnet.
Claim 24 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the magnetic source includes a plurality of permanent magnets”. It is unclear if this limitation includes the permanent magnet recited in claim 21, or if this limitation requires an additional plurality of magnets.
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 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alford (US 9157487 B2) in view of Sturtivant (GB 2103023 A).
Regarding claim 21, Alford discloses a power take-off (see Fig. 2; 50) comprising: a housing (52) adapted to be supported on a source of rotational energy (see column 1 lines 9-10, wherein “This disclosure relates to power takeoff devices useful for mounting on vehicle transmissions); an input mechanism (54) supported within the housing and adapted to be rotatably driven by the source of rotational energy; an output mechanism (60) supported within the housing and rotatably driven by the input mechanism, wherein at least one of the input mechanism and the output mechanism includes a pair of mating gears (56, 64). Alford fails to disclose a magnetic source configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears during operation of the power take-off to abate rattling, wherein the magnetic source includes a permanent magnet that is supported on the housing of the power take-off and a disk that is connected for rotation with either of the mating gears. However, Sturtivant teaches a magnetic source (see Fig. 1; 8) configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears (4) during operation to abate rattling (see page 1 lines 106-114, wherein “As the aluminum disc 6 spins in the magnetic field between the arrays, its interaction with the magnetic field induces eddy currents in the disc, dissipating energy as heat within the disc and generating a counter torque acting on the output shaft 5. This counter torque is transmitted through the gearbox 4, where it is amplified, to the input shaft 2, thereby to create a damping or braking effect”), wherein the magnetic source includes a permanent magnet (see page 1 line 51, wherein a permanent magnet is disclosed) that is supported on the housing (7) and a disk (6) that is connected for rotation with either of the mating gears (4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Alford with a magnetic source, as taught by Sturtivant, to provide an effective and reliable way to provide the gears with a braking effect to slow rotation, and a damping effect to reduce oscillations in the gearbox (see page 1 lines 106-114); and to provide an eddy current damping device which does not use fluids (see page 1 lines 26-28). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears (Alford; 56, 64) during operation of the power take-off (Alford; 50); the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) is supported on the housing of the power take-off (Alford; 52).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of claim 21 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) includes a permanent magnet (Sturtivant; page 1 line 51, wherein a permanent magnet is disclosed).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of claim 21 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) includes a plurality of permanent magnets (Sturtivant; page 1 line 51, wherein a plurality permanent magnets are disclosed).
Regarding claim 26, Alford discloses a power take-off (see Fig. 2; 50) comprising: a housing (52) adapted to be supported on a source of rotational energy(see column 1 lines 9-10, wherein “This disclosure relates to power takeoff devices useful for mounting on vehicle transmissions); an input mechanism (54) supported within the housing and adapted to be rotatably driven by the source of rotational energy; an output mechanism (60) supported within the housing and rotatably driven by the input mechanism, wherein at least one of the input mechanism and the output mechanism includes a pair of mating gears (56, 64). Alford fails to disclose an eddy current damper configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears during operation of the power take-off to abate rattling, the eddy current damper including a magnetic source, wherein the eddy current damper includes a disk that is connected for rotation with either of the mating gears and the magnetic source is supported on the housing of the power take-off. However, Sturtivant teaches an eddy current damper (see Fig. 1; 6, 7, 8) configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears (4) during operation to abate rattling (see page 1 lines 106-114, wherein “As the aluminum disc 6 spins in the magnetic field between the arrays, its interaction with the magnetic field induces eddy currents in the disc, dissipating energy as heat within the disc and generating a counter torque acting on the output shaft 5. This counter torque is transmitted through the gearbox 4, where it is amplified, to the input shaft 2, thereby to create a damping or braking effect”), the eddy current damper including a magnetic source (8), wherein the eddy current damper includes a disk (6) that is connected for rotation with either of the mating gears (see Fig. 1), and the magnetic source is supported on the housing (7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Alford with an eddy current damper, as taught by Sturtivant, to provide an effective and reliable way to provide the gears with a braking effect to slow rotation, and a damping effect to reduce oscillations in the gearbox (see page 1 lines 106-114); and to provide an eddy current damping device which does not use fluids (see page 1 lines 26-28). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the eddy current damper (Sturtivant; 7, 8, 9) configured to exert a drag torque on either or both of the mating gears (Alford; 56, 64) during operation of the power take-off (Alford; 50), and the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) is supported on the housing of the power take-off (Alford; 52).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of claim 26 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) includes a permanent magnet (Sturtivant; page 1 line 51, wherein a permanent magnet is disclosed).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of claim 26 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the magnetic source (Sturtivant; 8) includes a plurality of permanent magnets (Sturtivant; page 1 line 51, wherein a plurality permanent magnets are disclosed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sturtivant is non-analogous art, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2141.01(a) reads “In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.” First, the problem of the instant application is recited in paragraph [0002], which reads “this invention relates to an improved structure for such power take-off that minimizes the transmission of torque transients and other vibrations therethrough from the source of rotational energy to the rotatably driven accessory, which results in a significant reduction in the amount of noise that may be generated during operation”, while Sturtivant discloses the problem on page 1 lines 3-9, which reads “This invention relates to damping devices in which a damping force is generated by movement of an electrically conducting member through a magnetic field which movement causes eddy currents to be induced in the member which, in turn, generate a force resisting movement of the member dependent upon its velocity.” Both inventions deal with the problem of vibrations. Second, on page 1 lines 9-11 of Sturtivant reads “In particular, but not exclusively, this invention relates to eddy current dampers for use on spacecraft”. Sturtivant explicitly discloses that this invention is not limited to spacecraft. The invention of Sturtivant is applicable to transmissions having meshing gears which generate vibrations, and therefore the field of endeavor of Sturtivant is geared transmissions. Sturtivant is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application and is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the invention, which satisfies both conditions of MPEP 2141.01(a). The prior art of Sturtivant is therefore analogous art.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination lacks motivation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner notes Applicant’s argument that Sturtivant’s purpose is speed-limiting for controlled deployment, not vibration damping. This is categorically false. Page 1 lines 1-2 of Sturtivant read “This invention relates to damping devices in which a damping force is generated”. Dictionary.com defines the term damping as “any method of dispersing energy in a vibrating system”, and also provides a scientific definition of damping as “The action of a substance or of an element in a mechanical or electrical device that gradually reduces the degree of oscillation, vibration, or signal intensity, or prevents it from increasing.” The device of Sturtivant is explicitly for the controlling vibrations in a system. Second, MPEP 2144(II) states “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).” According to the rejection above, it would be obvious to combine the prior art of Alford with the teachings of Sturtivant “to provide an effective and reliable way to provide the gears with a braking effect to slow rotation, and a damping effect to reduce oscillations in the gearbox (see page 1 lines 106-114); and to provide an eddy current damping device which does not use fluids (see page 1 lines 26-28).” The motivation above provides the advantages of a braking effect, a damping effect and damper which does not use fluids, all of which have an expectation of some advantage. Therefore, according to MPEP 2144(II), there is strong motivation to combine the prior art.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Sturtivant does not teach the claimed structural configuration, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant appears to argue that Sturtivant must disclose all the limitations of the claim, i.e., a power take-off, an input mechanism and an output mechanism, a source of rotational energy, etc., this is categorically false. As can be seen from the rejection of claims 21 and 26 above, the above limitations are disclosed by Alford. Sturtivant is relied upon for teaching an eddy current damper, such that the combination of Alford and Sturtivant disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 26. Second, the claims require “a disk that is connected for rotation with either of the mating gears”. The limitation does not require a disk directly connected to either one of the mating gears, just connected for rotation with either of the mating gears. Additionally, Applicant’s own disclosure does not support a disk that is directly connected to either of the mating gears. In fact, figures 2 and 3 of the instant application appear to show the disk 41 spaced apart from drive gear 21 and provided on shaft 17. As such, the combination of Alford and Sturtivant disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 26.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the amended claims are patentable for the same reason as the parent patent, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the parent application comprises significantly more structural limitations than the instant application, such that the scope of the claims are different. Second, while the applications are linked as parent and child applications, each application is examined separately. In this instance, the broader application, i.e., the instant application, is unpatentable.
Given at least the arguments presented above, Alford in view of Sturtivant disclose all the limitations of claims 21 and 26, and the rejections are maintained.
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 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