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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ [0014] last line it should read - - 106a - - instead of “104a”;
In ¶ [0015] when referring to the “slinger surface” it should read
- - 118 - - instead or “116”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo (US 9,982,713).
With respect to claim 1, Seo teaches a rotating machine comprising a housing (Fig.1, Item 51) defining a housing interior; an output shaft (Fig.1, Item 55) disposed in the housing interior, extending along an output axis, and configured to be rotatably coupled to an external shaft; a first seal (Figs.1 and 2, Item 15) engaged with said output shaft and said housing for preventing ingress of debris into said housing interior; and a slinger seal (Figs.1 and 2, Item 16) engaged with both of said output shaft and said first seal for further preventing ingress of debris into said housing interior by preventing ingress of debris toward said first seal (Col.1, Lines 15 – 29 and Col.1, Line 56 – Col.2, Line 11 and Col.4, Lines 10 – 28).
With respect to claim 2, Seo teaches further comprising a bearing (Fig.1, Item 13) coupled to said output shaft (Fig.1, Item 55) for supporting rotation of said output shaft, wherein said first seal (Fig.1, Item 15) is disposed between said bearing and said slinger seal (Fig.1, Item 16) with respect to said output axis.
With respect to claim 3, Seo teaches wherein the bearing is further defined as a tapered (Fig.1, Items 12a and 12b, contact surfaces are tapered) bearing such that the output shaft and the first seal are axially fixed with respect to the output axis.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda et al. (US 2020/0191195).
Honda et al. teach rotating machine comprising a housing (Fig.5, Item 41B) defining a housing interior; an output shaft (Fig.5, Item 11B) disposed in said housing interior, extending along an output axis, and configured to be rotatably coupled to an external shaft; a first seal (Fig.5, Item 31B) engaged with the output shaft (Fig.5, Item 11B) and the housing (Fig.5, Item 41B) for preventing ingress of debris into said housing interior; and a slinger seal (Fig.5, Item 21B) engaged with both of the output shaft and the first seal for further preventing ingress of debris into the housing interior by preventing ingress of debris toward the first seal; wherein the output shaft has a first output portion having a first shaft diameter (Fig.5, Item 11B), and a second output portion having a second shaft diameter (Fig.5, Item 11b), wherein the first shaft diameter is greater than the second shaft diameter (Fig.5), and wherein the first seal (Fig.5, Item 31B) is engaged with the first output portion (Fig.5, Item 11B) and the slinger seal (Fig.5, Item 21B) is engaged with the second output portion (Fig.5, Item 11b); and wherein the slinger seal is comprised of steel (¶ [0055]).
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 6, 7, 9 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US 9,982,713) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 8,102,087).
With respect to claim 6, Seo teaches the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to particularly disclose the drive module assembly further comprising an input shaft disposed in the housing interior, extending along an input axis, coupled to the housing, and configured to receive rotational torque from a power source; and a gear train disposed in the housing interior and rotatably coupled to the input shaft and the output shaft.
On the other hand, Yamamoto et al. teach drive module assembly (Fig.2) comprising an input shaft (Fig.2, Item I) disposed in the housing (Fig.2, Item H) interior, extending along an input axis, coupled to the housing, and configured to receive rotational torque from a power source (Fig.2, Item MG1); and a gear train (Fig.2, Items O, CR and DE) disposed in the housing interior and rotatably coupled to the input shaft (Fig.2, Item I) and the output shaft (Fig.2 bottom, items extending sideways from Item DE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Seo seal configuration in the Yamamoto et al. drive module because it would protect the bearings supporting the rotating members from the dirt, debris and/or water, maintaining its optimal performance and prolonging their working life.
With respect to claim 7, Yamamoto et al. comprising the power source (Fig.2, Item MG1), wherein the power source is further defined as an electric machine (Col.4, Lines 49 – 54).
With respect to claim 9, The Examiner considers that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ a drive module system comprising an external shaft because it would permit the use of the same type of drive module system with different applications.
With respect to claim 10, Seo teaches further comprising a secondary slinger (Fig.2, Item 19) seal engaged with the housing for preventing ingress of debris into the housing interior, wherein the slinger seal (Fig.2, Item 16) is disposed between the first seal (Fig.2, Item 15) and the secondary slinger seal (Fig.2, Item 19) with respect to the output axis.
With respect to claim 11, Seo teaches wherein the secondary slinger seal (Fig.2, Item 19) has a U-shape configuration that overlaps the housing toward the slinger seal (Fig.2, Item 16) with respect to the output axis.
With respect to claims 12 – 20, the obvious combination of Seo et al. and Yamamoto et al. teach the limitations described in the claims as discussed above. Furthermore, Yamamoto et al. teach the use of a secondary drive module and it associated components as discussed above regarding the first drive module.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda et al. (US 2020/0191195) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 8,102,087).
With respect to claim 6, Honda et al. teach the limitations already discussed in a previous rejection, but fails to particularly disclose the drive module assembly further comprising an input shaft disposed in the housing interior, extending along an input axis, coupled to the housing, and configured to receive rotational torque from a power source; and a gear train disposed in the housing interior and rotatably coupled to the input shaft and the output shaft.
On the other hand, Yamamoto et al. teach drive module assembly (Fig.2) comprising an input shaft (Fig.2, Item I) disposed in the housing (Fig.2, Item H) interior, extending along an input axis, coupled to the housing, and configured to receive rotational torque from a power source (Fig.2, Item MG1); and a gear train (Fig.2, Items O, CR and DE) disposed in the housing interior and rotatably coupled to the input shaft (Fig.2, Item I) and the output shaft (Fig.2 bottom, items extending sideways from Item DE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the Honda et al. seal configuration in the Yamamoto et al. drive module because it would protect the bearings supporting the rotating members from the dirt, debris and/or water, maintaining its optimal performance and prolonging their working life.
With respect to claim 8, Honda et al. teach wherein the output shaft has a first output portion having a first shaft diameter (Fig.5, Item 11B), and a second output portion having a second shaft diameter (Fig.5, Item 11b), wherein the first shaft diameter is greater than the second shaft diameter (Fig.5), and wherein the first seal (Fig.5, Item 31B) is engaged with the first output portion (Fig.5, Item 11B) and the slinger seal (Fig.5, Item 21B) is engaged with the second output portion (Fig.5, Item 11b).
Conclusion
The attached hereto PTO Form 892 lists prior art made of record that the Examiner considered it pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGARDO SAN MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2074. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 5:00 M - F.
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, Shawki S. Ismail can be reached on 571-272-3985. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Edgardo San Martin/
Edgardo San Martín
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2837
March 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights