DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed July 21, 2025 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 .
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fink et al. (USP 3,377,876).
Referring to Figure 8, Fink teaches a propulsion system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a first electric propulsion motor (21 in Fig. 5) comprising a stator and a rotor having a first output shaft (I) able to rotate about a first axis; a second electric propulsion motor (20 in Fig. 5) comprising a stator and a rotor having a second output shaft (II) able to rotate about a second axis; a first reducer (meshing gears A’ and C’) able to receive the torque supplied by the first electric motor, via a first selective coupling system (clutches used to engage A’ and C’ to their respective shafts), this first reducer having a first reduction ratio; a second reducer (meshing gears B’ and C’) able to receive the torque supplied by the second electric motor, via a second selective coupling system (clutches used to engage B’ and C’ to their respective shafts), this second reducer having a second reduction ratio; and a third coupling system (meshing gears A and B, including clutches for engaging A and B to their respective shafts), which may or may not be selective, for coupling the first output shaft and the second output shaft, wherein torque flowing between the first output shaft and the second output shaft through the third coupling system does not utilize a shaft downstream of both the first reducer and the second reducer, wherein the first axis and the second axis are not coincident, wherein the third coupling system is formed in full by one or more element, each element of the third coupling system belonging neither to the first coupling system nor to the second coupling system, and wherein the propulsion system does not employ a thermal engine.
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) 1-7, 9-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink et al. (USP 3,377,876) in view of Marchetti (FR 2976526).
Referring to Figure 8, Fink teaches a propulsion system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a first electric propulsion motor (21 in Fig. 5) comprising a stator and a rotor having a first output shaft (I) able to rotate about a first axis; a second electric propulsion motor (20 in Fig. 5) comprising a stator and a rotor having a second output shaft (II) able to rotate about a second axis; a first reducer (meshing gears A’ and C’) able to receive the torque supplied by the first electric motor, via a first selective coupling system (clutches used to engage A’ and C’ to their respective shafts), this first reducer having a first reduction ratio; a second reducer (meshing gears B’ and C’) able to receive the torque supplied by the second electric motor, via a second selective coupling system (clutches used to engage B’ and C’ to their respective shafts), this second reducer having a second reduction ratio; and a third coupling system (meshing gears A and B, including clutches for engaging A and B to their respective shafts), which is selective, for coupling the first output shaft and the second output shaft (for example, Fig 3e illustrates the first and second output shafts being connected through gears A and B), wherein the first axis and the second axis are not coincident, wherein the propulsion system does not employ a thermal engine, wherein the propulsion system further comprising a driven shaft (III) arranged in such a way as to receive at least one of: the torque passing via the first reducer, and the torque passing via the second reducer, wherein the propulsion system does not include a path enabling the torque from one motor to reach the driven shaft (III) without flowing through at least one reducer, and wherein the propulsion system further comprising a control member (inherent, which can be a mechanical, an electrical, or a hydraulic part) configured to control the first, second, and third coupling systems so that the propulsion system can adopt a configuration (illustrated in Fig. 3f) whereby the driven shaft (III) receives the torque passing only via the first reducer (meshing gears A’ and C’), this torque being generated only by the second electric motor (20). Note, the claims does not require the driven shaft to receive torque passing only via the first reducer (meshing gears A’ and C’), this torque being generated by the first electric motor (21), and by the second electric motor (20). However, it was known in the art to drive a gear arrangement by simultaneously energizing two electric drive motors.
Fing does not teach the driven shaft (III) connected to a differential. However, it was well known to provide a vehicle drive with a differential to power the vehicle wheels. For example, the prior art to Marchetti teaches an electric drive arrangement having a differential. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the drive arrangement of Fink with a differential, as taught by Marchetti, motivation being to drive the wheels of a vehicle, such that the wheels are capable of rotating at different speeds to allow the vehicle to navigate a curved roadway.
Claim 2: Fink teaches the first axis and the second axis being parallel.
Claim 3: Fink teaches the first reducer being connected to the first output shaft of the first electric motor via the first selective coupling system.
Claim 4: Fink teaches the second reducer being connected to the second output shaft of the second electric motor via the second selective coupling system.
Claim 5: Fink teaches each coupling system employing a clutch.
Claims 6 and 7: Fink teaches the first coupling system, the second coupling system, and the third coupling system employing a jaw (dog) clutch.
Claim 9: Fink modified with Marchetti teaches the control member being configured (see Figs. 3a-3h) so that the propulsion system can further adopt all or some of the following configurations: a configuration (i) whereby the differential receives the torque passing via the first reducer, this torque being generated by the first electric motor, a configuration (ii) whereby the differential receives the torque passing via the second reducer, this torque being generated by the second electric motor, a configuration (iii) whereby the differential receives the torque passing via the first reducer, this torque being generated by the first electric motor, and also the torque passing via the second reducer, this torque being generated by the second electric motor, and a parking-brake configuration (vi) in which the three coupling systems are in a coupled configuration.
Claim 10: Fink teaches (see Fig. 12) comprising at least one of: two of the first reducers (A’ and A”), with first reduction gear ratios that differ from each other, being arranged in parallel, and two of the second reducers (B’ and B”), with second reduction gear ratios that differ from each other, being arranged in parallel.
Claim 11: Fink teaches the third coupling system comprising at least one element which belongs neither to the first coupling system nor to the second coupling system.
Claim 12: Fink teaches the first reduction ratio is different from the second reduction ratio.
Claim 14: Fink teaches the third coupling system comprises at least one element belonging neither to the first reducer nor to the second reducer.
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
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