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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I: Figures 1-9 and claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 4/23/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application with claims 11-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Claim 1:
“a drive unit configured to provide driving power to a wheel” ,
Interpreted as an electric motor fixed inside the wheel per [0067] (noting that all paragraph citations are to Applicant’s PG PUB), and equivalents thereof;
“a knuckle unit connected to the drive unit”,
Interpreted as a first knuckle and second knuckle per [0073], and equivalents thereof;
“a steering drive unit configured to couple to a vehicle body and configured to generate a steering force while extending or contracting in a longitudinal direction of the steering drive unit”,
Interpreted as the structures recited in claim 2, and equivalents thereof;
“a steering angle adjustment unit…configured to adjust a steering angle of the wheel in conjunction with the steering force generated from the steering drive unit”,
Interpreted as the structures recited in claim 5, and equivalents thereof;
Claim 2:
“a power generation module configured to couple to the vehicle body and configured to generate driving power”
interpreted as being an electric motor per [0091], and equivalents thereof;
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.
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 § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2003/0047896 A1 to Unkoo in view of US 2020/0062064 A1 to Riedel.
Regarding claim 1, Unkoo discloses a corner module apparatus for a vehicle (Figs. 1-2 & [0005], [0027]), comprising:
a knuckle unit (60) … (Fig. 2 & [0022]-[0023]);
a steering drive unit (28,36) configured to couple to a vehicle body (2,4) and configured to generate a steering force while extending or contracting in a longitudinal direction of the steering drive unit (28,36) (Figs. 1-6 & [0015], [0019]-[0020], [0022], and [0024] disclose side member 4 is a part of the vehicle sub frame, interpreted as being part of the vehicle body in line with [0078] of Applicant’s PG Pub; steering gear unit 28 include push rod 36 which is connected to link 46 via a joint and by extending/contracting the push rod, e.g., see Fig. 6, the vehicle wheels are rotated/steered);
a steering angle adjustment unit (56) connected to the knuckle unit (60), disposed so that a longitudinal direction of the steering angle adjustment unit (56) is different from the longitudinal direction of the steering drive unit (28,36), and configured to adjust a steering angle of the wheel (64) in conjunction with the steering force generated from the steering drive unit (28,36) (Figs. 1-2 and 6 & [0023]-[0024]); and
a crank member (52) disposed to be spaced apart from the steering drive unit (28) in a height direction of the vehicle body (2,4) and configured to convert a transmission direction of the steering force, which is generated from the steering drive unit (28,36), into the longitudinal direction of the steering angle adjustment unit (56) (Figs. 1-2 and 6 & [0023]-[0024] noting that the height differences are best seen in Fig. 1.).
Unkoo does not appear to disclose a drive unit configured to provide driving power to a wheel; and a knuckle unit connected to the drive unit.
Riedel teaches that it was old and well known in the art of corner modules, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a drive unit (12) configured to provide driving power to a wheel (10) (Fig. 6 & [0040] and [0047]); and a knuckle unit (14,18) connected to the drive unit (12) (Figs. 1 and 6 & [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of corner modules before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the corner module disclosed by Unkoo to incorporate a drive unit configured to provide driving power to a wheel; and a knuckle unit connected to the drive unit as taught by Riedel in order to individually drive each wheel, e.g., see Riedel [0040], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Unkoo further discloses wherein the steering drive unit (28) comprises:
a power generation module (28) configured to couple to the vehicle body (2,4) and configured to generate driving power (Figs. 1,2, and 6 & [0020]);
a push rod (36) configured to be extended or retracted in conjunction with the driving power of the power generation module (28) (Figs. 1,2, and 6 & [0020] and [0022]); and
a first joint extending from the push rod (36) and rotatably connected to one side of the crank member (52) (Fig. 1 & [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 2, Unkoo further discloses wherein the push rod (36) is disposed so that a longitudinal direction of the push rod (36) is parallel to a longitudinal direction of the vehicle (Figs. 1-2 and 6 noting that the push rod 36 is interpreted as including the two portions depicted in Fig. 6 at least one of which is parallel to the longitudinal direction of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Unkoo further discloses wherein the steering angle adjustment unit (56) comprises:
a tie rod (56) having one side and an other side opposing each other and face the crank member (52) and the knuckle unit (60) (Figs. 1-2 & [0023]), respectively;
a second joint at the one side of the tie rod (56) and rotatably connected to the other side of the crank member (52) (Figs. 1-2 & [0023]); and
a third joint at the other side of the tie rod (56) and rotatably connected to the knuckle unit (60) (Figs. 1-2 & [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, Unkoo further discloses wherein the crank member (52) comprises:
a crank body (40) supported to be rotatable about an axis defined in the height direction of the vehicle body (2,4) (Fig. 2 & [0022]-[0023]);
a first extension part (46) extending from the crank body (40) and connected to the steering drive unit (28,36) (Fig. 2 & [0022]-[0023]); and
a second extension part (44) extending from the crank body (40) and connected to the steering angle adjustment unit (56) (Fig. 2 & [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 7, Unkoo further discloses wherein the first and second extension parts (44,46) extend in different directions from the crank body (40) (Fig. 2 & [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 7, while Unkoo does recognize that the first and second extension parts may have predetermined lengths, e.g., see [0022], Unkoo does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a length of the first extension part (46) is shorter than a length of the second extension part (44) (Fig. 2 & [0022]).
However, a change in size, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant, is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, rearranging the predetermined lengths of the first and second extension parts such that the first extension part is shorter than the second extension part is considered to be an obvious modification and thus is not patentably distinct. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 7, Unkoo further discloses wherein when the steering drive unit (28) performs an extension or contraction operation, the second extension part (44) rotates at the same angular velocity as the first extension part (46) and applies a compressive or tensile load to the steering angle adjustment unit (56) depending on a rotation direction (Figs. 1,2,and 6 & [0022]-[0023] disclose the links 44 and 46 are perpendicular to each other and and therefore are interpreted as rotating at the same angular velocity when rotating about hinge 40.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unkoo in view of Riedel and further in view of US 2021/0276427 A1 to Yamamoto et al (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 2, Unkoo further discloses wherein the power generation module (28) is configured to be disposed behind the wheel (64).
However, because Unkoo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the vehicle has a pair of front and rear wheels, Unkoo does not appear to explicitly disclose that the wheel (64) comprises front (64) and rear wheels disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body (2,4), and the power generation module (28) is configured to be disposed between the front (64) and rear wheels.
Yamamoto teaches that it was old and well known in the art of hub drive vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the wheel (10F/R) comprises front (10F) and rear (10R) wheels disposed to be spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body (Fig. 1 & [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hub drive vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hub drive vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Unkoo/Riedel to incorporate the vehicle to include a front and a rear wheel spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the vehicle body as taught by Yamamoto in order to provide greater stability of the vehicle by having four wheels instead of two and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Examiner notes, that the resulting structure of modifying the vehicle disclosed by the modified combination of Unkoo/Riedel in view of the teachings of Yamamoto including a front and rear wheel spaced apart in the longitudinal direction would result in a vehicle where the power generation module as taught by Unkoo would be configured to be disposed between the front and rear wheels (Unkoo – 64/Yamamoto – 10F/R).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unkoo in view of Riedel and further in view of US 2018/0170136 A1 to Gell et al (hereinafter Gell).
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 5, the modified combination of Unkoo/Riedel does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the second joint is connected to the other side of the crank member (Unkoo - 52) so as to be rotatable about multiple axes (Unkoo - Fig. 2).
Gell teaches that it was old and well known in the art of independent wheel suspension, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the joints of a tie rod to be rotatable about multiple axes (Fig. 2 & [0021]-[0023] disclose that the tie rod 15 includes ball joints operative along three axes to allow movement with the wheel suspension).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of independent wheel suspensions before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel suspension system disclosed by the modified combination of Unkoo/Riedel to incorporate the for the joints of the tie rod to be rotatable about multiple axes as taught by Gell in order to enable freedom of movement of a tie rod without unnecessary limitation of the joint, e.g., see [0004], and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights