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 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.
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: “latching element” in claim 1, “displacement element” in claim 1. In addition, it is noted that the guide means falls under 112(f). Furthermore, it is noted that the structural member with receptacles includes sufficient structure via the receptacles to remove this feature from the purview of 112(f). The word element is a nonce word that is preceded in both above terms by functional language that does not import any particular structure thereinto.
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 guide means is interpreted as the cage sleeve. The element that latches is interpreted as balls. The element that displaces the latching element/balls into the receptacle is interpreted as a cone.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the structural member has a recess on an end face of the structural member.” The specification illustrates that the recess 20 on structural member 10 is on an inner circumferential face. An “end face” under a general definition is at an end of a member and is typically a flat face that extends in a radial direction. While Applicant can be its own lexicographer, there is no special definition set forth in the specification. As such, when claim 12 is read in light of the claim, it is unclear what must and can be interpreted as an end face in this context. Claim 12 also recites “a latching element running surface.” It is unclear what a latching element running surface is or on what element this surface is a part. Must this surface interact with the latching element or would also surface count as a latching element running surface?
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) 1-7, 9, 13, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (US 3,827,260).
Claim 1
Kato discloses an overload clutch arrangement, through which a longitudinal axis (A) passes, comprising:
a guide means (cage sleeve 4);
at least one latching element (balls 11) movably received in a bore of the guide means (4);
a structural member (1) having a latching receptacle (2); and
a displacement element (9) movable along the longitudinal axis (rotation axis of 1) so as to displace the at least one latching element (11) into the latching receptacle (2) of the structural member (1);
wherein the at least one latching element (11) is adjustable between i) a latching position (ball within 2) in which the at least one latching element engages the latching receptacle and rotationally fixedly couples the guide means to the structural member and ii) a freewheel position (ball overrides 2 by pushing inward) in which the at least one latching element is arranged outside the latching receptacle and allows freewheeling of the structural member relative to the guide means.
Claim 2
Kato discloses wherein the guide means (4) is a cage sleeve (see FIGS. 1 and 2).
Claim 3
Kato discloses wherein the guide means (4) is arranged in a force flux path (torque must go through the cage to transfer between 1 and 4).
Claim 4
Kato discloses wherein the at least one latching element (11) is a ball (see FIGS. 1 or 2).
Claim 5
Kato discloses wherein the displacement element (9) has an outer diameter which tapers along the longitudinal axis (see FIGS. 1 or 6).
Claim 6
Kato discloses wherein the outer diameter of the displacement element (9) tapers along the longitudinal axis in a direction of the structural member (see FIG. 1 illustrating the tapering of element 9 along the axial direction which is also the direction of the structural element 1).
Claim 7
Kato discloses a spring means (10) which pretensions the displacement element (9) in a direction of the at least one latching element (11), as a result of which the at least one latching element (11) is pretensioned into the latching position (a force of 9 downward in FIG. 1 causes an outward force on the balls due to the taper).
Claim 9
Kato discloses an adjusting sleeve (7) which preloads the spring means (10) in the direction of the at least one latching element (11).
Claim 13
Kato discloses wherein the latching receptacle has a width in a circumferential direction in a range of 0.5 to 1.5 times a diameter of the at least one latching element (see FIG. 1). The ball must fit at least partially within the receptacle and the receptacle is illustrated as being very close to the diameter of the ball which would equate to a range of close to 1.
Claim 14
Kato discloses wherein the latching receptacle has opposite side walls which run parallel to each other [or enclose an angle in a range of 10° to 90° with each other] (see FIG. 2).
Claim 19
Kato discloses a guide rod (shaft portion of 1 to the right in FIG. 1) fixedly connected to the structural member (sleeve portion of 1).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Nienhaus (US 5,733,196).
Claim 8
Kato does not disclose wherein the spring means is a disc spring package. However, Nienhaus discloses wherein the spring means is a disc spring package. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Kato to have substituted the coil spring of Kato for the disk spring package of Nienhaus in order to reduce the axial dimension.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Nienhaus and further in view of Nelson (US 2024/0181808).
Claim 10
Kato does not disclose a damping means arranged within the guide means and for reducing noise from the overload clutch arrangement. However, Nelson discloses a damping means (damping ring 358) arranged within the outer sleeve and for reducing noise from the overload clutch arrangement (see paragraph [0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Kato to add a damping ring in order to dampen axial movement.
Claim 11
Kato as modified according to claim 10 discloses wherein the damping means is a damping ring.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato.
Claim 15
Kato discloses wherein when the at least one latching element is in the latching position, the latching receptacle has an engagement depth for the at least one latching element which is in a range of 0.1 to 0.45 times a diameter of the at least one latching element (see FIG. 2, illustrating a portion that is less than half of the ball diameter within the receptacle). The drawings can be relied upon for what they reasonable disclose and in this case the balls being in a receptacle that allows for a small portion of the ball to be within the depth of the receptacle is illustrated and would be readily understood. The recited range is illustrated and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the exact dimensions of Kato to be within this range in order to optimize the ball remaining in the receptacle versus overrunning based on the desired amount of force to overrun.
Claim 16
Kato as modified according to claim 15 renders obvious wherein the engagement depth is 0.33 times the diameter of the at least one latching element. While the exact dimension is not disclosed, the figures include a ball that is within a depth of the receptacle that is less than half. This is so close to the claimed depth of 0.33 so as to render it obvious to try that particular depth. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see also MEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Norton (US 9,151,343).
Claim 17
Kato does not disclose wherein the latching receptacle has an inlet edge which has a rounding with a radius. However, Norton discloses wherein the latching receptacle (recesses 54 that hold balls 70) has an inlet edge (either edge of recess 54) which has a rounding with a radius (see FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Kato so that the receptacles had rounded edges in order to provide smoother engagement and disengagement of the receptacles.
It is noted that there is no structure that limits which edge is an inlet edge versus an outlet edge recited in the claim.
Claim 18
Kato does not disclose wherein the latching receptacle has an outlet edge which has a rounding with a radius. However, Norton discloses wherein the latching receptacle (recesses 54 that hold balls 70) has an inlet edge (either edge of recess 54) which has a rounding with a radius (see FIG. 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Kato so that the receptacles had rounded edges in order to provide smoother engagement and disengagement of the receptacles.
It is noted that there is no structure that limits which edge is an inlet edge versus an outlet edge recited in the claim.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Sung et al. (US 2020/0347916; hereinafter “Sung”).
Claim 20
Kato does not disclose a sensor arrangement, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a first sensor target rotationally fixed to the structural member; a second sensor target rotationally fixed to a drive shaft; a first sensor for sensing the first sensor target; and a second sensor for sensing the second sensor target. However, Sung discloses a sensor arrangement, wherein the sensor arrangement comprises: a first sensor target (140) rotationally fixed to the structural member (44 which is the outer portion of a clutch); a second sensor target (130) rotationally fixed to a drive shaft (30 which is connected to the inner portion of a clutch); a first sensor for sensing the first sensor target; and a second sensor for sensing the second sensor target (see paragraphs [0084]-[0087] describing two sensors which measure a speed of the two components and transmit this data to a controller for control requiring both a target on each element and a sensor in the form of a mechanical sensor or controls to receive and transmit this data). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Kato to include sensors on the input side and output side of the clutch, i.e., on each side of the overload clutch, in order to be able to provide controls to other aspects of the device based on the state of the overload clutch, which can be determined with two sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With reference to claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or render obvious an overload clutch comprising the combination of features including “wherein the structural member has a recess on an end face of the structural member, wherein the latching receptacle, a latching element running surface, or both the latching receptacle and the latching element running surface is formed in the recess.” The combination of the receptacles or a latching element running surface (which is interpreted as a surface that engages with the latching elements) is within a recess that is distinct from the receptacles themselves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato et al. (US 4,311,224) and Angiolini et al. (EP 2957788A1) each disclose a cage, balls, and a spring biased axially movable member. Gensmann et al. (GB 2392966A) FIG. 2 discloses an overrunning clutch with balls and an axially movable member that is actuated actively. McGee (US 3,693,381) discloses an axially movable ball that engages other balls to move into recesses. Eaves et al. (US 3,727,432) discloses a spring biased inner member that moves axially to engage a set of balls into a sleeve member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACEY A FLUHART whose telephone number is (571)270-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-7PM.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/STACEY A FLUHART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655