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 § 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 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 twice recites the term “inferior” which are subjective/relative/unclear. Subjective terms such as inferior, superior, good, bad, better, worse, etc. are relative and subject to personal opinion thereby rendering the scope of the claims unclear in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 8 recites “preferably”, which renders the claim unclear as to whether or not the limitations recited therewith are to limit the claim or not in accordance with MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 is unclear as to what manner the shims are “friction enhancing” since no specific magnitude of friction is set forth. Again, note MPEP 2173.05(b).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Knoblauch DE102019127242.
Claim 1. A shaft assembly for a gearbox, the shaft assembly including: a shaft (3), comprising a front end (one end of 3) and a back end (another end of 3) coaxial to a rotation axis; a gear assembly (13, 14), comprising a first gearwheel (13) and a second gearwheel (14) secured to each other so as to be locked in rotation relative to each other around the rotation axis; a first cylindrical joint (26 and opening in 13), comprising: a first cylindrical section (26), integral to the shaft and coaxial to the rotation axis, and a first central opening (opening in 13), integral to the first gearwheel, the first gearwheel being mounted on the shaft coaxially with the rotation axis via the first central opening; a second cylindrical joint (26 and opening in 14), comprising: a second cylindrical section (26), integral to the shaft and coaxial to the rotation axis, and a second central opening (opening in 14), the second gearwheel being mounted on the shaft coaxially with the rotation axis via the second central opening, wherein the first gearwheel is positioned between the front end and the second gearwheel; and a spline joint (24, 29, 30), comprising: a first part (24), integral to the shaft and coaxial to the rotation axis, and a second part (left 30, 29, right 30 as seen in fig.3), integral to the gear assembly, engaged with the first part so that both the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel of the gear assembly are locked in rotation with the shaft around the rotation axis via the spline joint.
Claim 2. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the gear assembly comprises a fastener (32), extending parallel to the rotation axis through the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel, wherein the securing of the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel to each other is ensured by the fastener.
Claim 4. The shaft assembly according to claim 2, wherein the fastener includes a screw (32), wherein one of the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel includes an internal thread (internal threads in 14 receiving threads of 32), wherein the screw is screwed into the internal thread for ensuring said securing.
Claim 5. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the shaft comprises an inner lubricant duct (hollow duct within 3 as seen in fig.3), opening inside the gear assembly for lubricating the spline joint. The prior art structure (bolded above) has the claimed structure and is thus presumed to be inherently capable of performing the claimed functions/properties (italicized above), thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114.
Claim 6. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the gear assembly comprises peripheral teeth (teeth of 13 and/or 14) configured (by the shape/number of countable teeth) to enable a measurement of a rotation speed of the gear assembly around the rotation axis. The prior art structure (bolded above) has the claimed structure and is thus presumed to be inherently capable of performing the claimed functions/properties (italicized above), thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114.
Claim 8 (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejection). The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein a distance (25 is a distance from left face of opening in 14 to left side of 24 as seen in figs.2-3) between the second central opening and the spline joint, measured parallel to the rotation axis, is inferior (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections) to a length of the spline joint (23 is length of 24), measured parallel to the rotation axis and preferably inferior (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections) to half of the length of the spline joint.
Claim 9. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the second part of the spline joint is integral with one of the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel (see fig.3 showing right 30 and left 30 both integral with 13 and 14, respectively).
Claim 10. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the gear assembly comprises a friction enhancing shim (15) interposed between the second gearwheel and the first gearwheel for ensuring the locking in rotation of the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel relative to each other. The prior art structure (bolded above) has the claimed structure and is thus presumed to be inherently capable of performing the claimed functions/properties (italicized above), thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114.
Claim 11. The shaft assembly according to claim 1, wherein the gear assembly comprises an added torque-transferring part (15), interposed between the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel parallel to the rotation axis and secured to the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel so as to be locked in rotation with the first gearwheel and the second gearwheel around the rotation axis, the second part of the spline joint being integral (at 29) to the torque-transferring part.
Claim 13. The shaft assembly according to claim 11 wherein the gear assembly comprises: a first radial guide (outer surface of 3 within 15), for centring (British English variant of centering acceptable in accordance with MPEP 608.01) the torque-transferring part relatively to the first gearwheel, with a radial play (slight radial space between 3 and 15 as seen in fig.3) between the first radial guide and the torque-transferring part, and a second radial guide (outer surface of 3 within 14), for centring (British English variant of centering acceptable in accordance with MPEP 608.01) the second gearwheel relatively to the torque-transferring part with a radial play (radial space between 3 and 14 as seen in fig.3, e.g., at 30 or other spaced portion of 14) between the second radial guide and the second gearwheel.
Claim 14. A gearbox (fig.1), comprising the shaft assembly according to any one of the previous claims and a housing (10, 40, 42, “housing of the transmission 1”, “housing of the gearbox 1”), wherein the shaft assembly is rotatable around the rotation axis in relation to the housing.
Claim 15. A vehicle (“motor vehicle, in particular a passenger car” comprising the gearbox according to claim 14.
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoblauch DE102019127242 in view of Lee US2748618.
Knoblauch discloses that the fastener includes a screw (Knoblauch, 32) that is threaded directly to the gear (Knoblauch, 14) rather than being secured with a nut as claimed. However, Lee teaches that it was very old and well known to be desirable to use a nut (Lee, 26) with a screw (Lee, 25) screwed therein such that the first gearwheel (Lee, 23) and the second gearwheel (Lee, 22) are interposed between the screw head and the nut parallel to the rotation axis for ensuring securing. One of ordinary skill would have easily recognized that nuts (similar to Lee) are desirable over internally threading the gear (as disclosed by Knoblauch) for servicing worn/stripped threads, since a small light nut is more easily and cheaply replaced than a large heavy internally threaded gear. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify as such.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knoblauch DE102019127242.
Claim 7. The Knoblauch spline joint parts being engaged with one another have similar intermeshing dimension/shape and appear to be both made of metal (as designated by the figure cross-hatching in accordance with MPEP 608.02[I][IX]) such that it would appear likely that the spline joint parts have substantially similar torsional stiffness. However, Knoblauch does not expressly disclose the second part stiffness to be between 0.8 and 1.2 times the first. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the stiffness of spline parts to be the same value (i.e., a ratio of 1) since one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized such to be less prone to relative deflection of parts and/or failure than having one part substantially less stiff than the other (e.g., one concerned with durability and consistent rotation of splined gears would choose equally stiff metal materials for splined gear parts rather than having one or the other be a substantially softer and more easily deformable/tearable material such as weak rubber etc.)
Claim 12 (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide shims interposed between the second gearwheel and the torque-transferring part and/or between the torque-transferring part and the first gearwheel, the examiner taking Official Notice that such was well known in the art to be desirable for achieving proper axial placement/tolerance and/or rotational locking of parts on a shaft. Such modification results in the claimed structure and is thus presumed to be inherently capable of performing the claimed functions of friction enhancing (as best understood, see 35 USC 112 rejections) and ensuring locking in rotation of the first gearwheel, the second gearwheel and the torque-transferring part relative to each other, thus presenting a prima facie case and properly shifting the burden to applicant to obtain/test the prior art and provide evidence to the contrary in accordance with MPEP §2112.01(I) and MPEP §2114.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon above is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosed/claimed shims (e.g., claim 12), e.g., Ludwig US 4848939, Valente US 5727430, Friedman US 20090000680, Murota US 5222418, Jacklin US 4391157, Kondo US 7574945.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR L MACARTHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-7085.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only.
Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/VICTOR L MACARTHUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights