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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered. The Examiner proceeds below with a response.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant’s argument have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to reference combinations being used in the current rejection.
Regarding Claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. § :
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
As the arguments apply to the amended claims, Applicant’s arguments fail to convince Examiner that Howard teaches away from providing a generator in a coaxial arrangement with a motor. A reference may be said to teach away when a person having ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant. If a reference does not teach that a combination is undesirable then it cannot be said to teach away.
Contrary to Applicant’s argument, the cited portions of the Howard reference describing the presence of a gear system do not in any way indicate the undesirability of the coaxial configuration of Yue. Further, the Howard reference does not indicate the undesirability of unsuitability of the Yue’s coaxial configuration.
There is nothing stated explicitly or implicitly in the Howard reference to indicate that utilizing the battery and control configuration would be undesirable for purposes of protecting the battery system in the coaxial configuration of Yue. To the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art, with the purpose of protecting the battery system, would look to the Howard reference and appreciate that such a configuration could be used in a vehicle to protect the battery. Therefore, Applicant has not established a teaching away and the rejection of Claims 1 and 14, and dependent claims therefrom on the basis of obviousness under the combination of references under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be maintained.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims , Applicant's arguments are based only upon dependencies from claims (as amended). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over by (), hereinafter “” in view of (US 2010/0006351), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A propulsion apparatus for replacing an internal combustion engine in a vehicle to make the vehicle an electric vehicle, comprising:
a drive motor (6, 7) having a rotor mounted on and extending annularly around a motor shaft (8), and a stator (6) spaced apart from the rotor (7) and extending annularly around the rotor (7) and at least a portion of the motor shaft (8),
wherein the motor shaft (8) has a first end, a second end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween and is connectable to a drivetrain of the vehicle to replace the internal combustion engine; See at least ¶¶; Claim 1
a generator (3, 4) having a rotatable part (4) mounted on and extending annularly around a generator shaft (2), and a fixed part (3) spaced apart from the rotatable part (4) and extending annularly around the rotatable part (4) and at least a portion of the generator shaft (2), wherein the generator shaft (2) has a first end, a second end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween and is connected to and is driveable by the motor shaft (8), and
wherein either the rotatable part (4) or the fixed part (3) is capable of generating a magnetic field, and an armature is provided on the alternate fixed part or rotatable part (See Fig 1 depicting the generator which necessarily generates a magnetic field); and
a support structure (5) to support the drive motor (6, 7), the generator (3, 4), the motor shaft (8) and the generator shaft (2), wherein the stator (6) and the fixed part (3) are mounted to the support structure (5) and the support structure includes one or more bearings (9) to support and limit lateral movement of the motor shaft (8) and generator shaft (2).
wherein the second end of the motor shaft (8) is connected to the first end of the generator shaft (2) such that the motor shaft (8) and generator shaft (2) are coaxial. See at least ¶¶
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the propulsion apparatus further comprises: a first battery bank; a second battery bank; and a control unit electrically connected to the first battery bank, the second battery bank, the drive motor, the generator, and connectable to a throttle control, and wherein the control unit can direct electrical power from one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank to the drive motor in response to a power demand signal from the throttle control, and can simultaneously direct electrical power from the generator into the other one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art system utilizing a known technique applicable to the system of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to protect the battery system. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the system of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system. Namely, a system that would utilize a propulsion apparatus which further comprises: a first battery bank; a second battery bank; and a control unit electrically connected to the first battery bank, the second battery bank, the drive motor, the generator, and connectable to a throttle control; wherein the control unit can direct electrical power from one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank to the drive motor in response to a power demand signal from the throttle control, and can simultaneously direct electrical power from the generator into the other one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank in to protect the battery system. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
[Examiner Note: The Examiner notes that the claim phrases “for replacing an internal combustion engine in a vehicle to make the vehicle an electric vehicle” and “to replace the internal combustion engine” merely amount to a recitation of intended use or purpose, and, in general, recitations of intended use or purpose are not germane to patentability of a claim (e.g., see: MPEP 2111.02). It is settled law that where all the structural elements of a claim exist in a prior art product, and that prior art product is capable of satisfying all intended use limitations, the claimed invention is nothing more than an unpatentable new use for an old product. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997)];
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
wherein the support structure includes a magnetic field shield positioned between the motor and the generator (: See partition wall of support structure depicted).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the support structure (5) is a housing to house the drive motor (6, 7), generator (3, 4) and at least a portion of the motor shaft (8) and the generator shaft (2) (: ¶¶).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the generator is a DC generator and further comprises a mechanical or electronic commutator which is electrically connected to the armature to convert the current generated in the armature to direct current See at least (: ¶¶)
Regarding Claim ,
discloses:
An electric vehicle having a powertrain which includes:
a propulsion apparatus comprising a drive motor (6, 7) mounted on a motor shaft (8),
wherein the motor shaft (8) has a first end, a second end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween See at least ¶¶; Claim 1;
a generator (3, 4) mounted on a generator shaft (2),
wherein the generator shaft (2) has a first end, a second end and a longitudinal axis extending therebetween and is connected to and is driveable by the motor shaft (8); and
a support structure (5) to support the drive motor (6, 7), the generator (3, 4), the motor shaft (8) and the generator shaft (2),
wherein the support structure includes one or more bearings (9) to support and limit lateral movement of the motor shaft (8) and generator shaft (2); and
a drivetrain connected to and driveable by the motor shaft (8) See at least ¶¶.
wherein the second end of the motor shaft (8) is connected to the first end of the generator shaft (2) such that the motor shaft (8) and generator shaft (2) are coaxial. See at least ¶¶
fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the electric vehicle further comprises: an energy supply and storage system, wherein the energy supply and storage system comprises a first battery bank; a second battery bank; and a control unit electrically connected to the first battery bank, the second battery bank, the drive motor, the generator, and connectable to a throttle control, and wherein the control unit can direct electrical power from one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank to the drive motor in response to a power demand signal from the throttle control, and can simultaneously direct electrical power from the generator into the other one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art system utilizing a known technique applicable to the system of . Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to protect the battery system. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the system of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved system. Namely, a system that would utilize an energy supply and storage system, wherein the energy supply and storage system comprises propulsion apparatus which further comprises: a first battery bank; a second battery bank; and a control unit electrically connected to the first battery bank, the second battery bank, the drive motor, the generator, and connectable to a throttle control; wherein the control unit can direct electrical power from one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank to the drive motor in response to a power demand signal from the throttle control, and can simultaneously direct electrical power from the generator into the other one of the first battery bank or the second battery bank in to protect the battery system. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the vehicle is a land-based vehicle, a marine vessel, or an aircraft. See at least : ¶¶-0007, 0013, 0021, 0025-0027
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the electric vehicle is a land-based vehicle having at least one drive axle and the drivetrain comprises a prop shaft which is connected to and is driveable by the motor shaft and extends longitudinally with respect to the vehicle from the propulsion apparatus to a differential at the drive axle See at least : ¶¶-0007, 0013, 0021, 0025-0027.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the prop shaft and the motor shaft are coaxial. See at least : ¶¶-0007, 0013, 0021, 0025-0027
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references disclose:
wherein the electric vehicle is a land-based vehicle having at least one drive axle and the drivetrain comprises a transmission which is connected to and is drivable by the motor shaft See at least : ¶¶-0007, 0013, 0021, 0025-0027. (: 10; Fig 1)
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Howard, as applied above.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
It has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. obviate a separate deflector, reduce part count).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that providing is significant in any way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of the combination of references to include and produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
It has been held that the use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). Additionally, it has been held that the term "integral" is not limited to a fabrication of parts from a single piece of metal, but inclusive of other means for maintaining parts fixed together as a single unit. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Applicant has not disclosed does anything more than produce predictable results (i.e. obviate a separate deflector, reduce part count).
Since applicant has failed to provide persuasive evidence on the record that providing is significant in any way, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of the combination of references to include and produce nothing more than predictable results within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that use of a one piece construction in place of several parts secured together as a single unit would be merely a matter of engineering choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B)).
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Howard, as applied above in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the generator is a permanent magnet generator with either the rotatable part or the fixed part comprising a permanent magnet and the alternate part providing the armature.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to minimize component envelope. See at least Yue: ¶¶; Abstract.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in the combination of references to minimize component envelope. See at least Yue: ¶¶; Abstract; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over and Howard, as applied above in view of Shirazee (US 2022/0224199), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
further comprising a fan attached to either the motor shaft or the generator shaft.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to dissipate heat. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in the combination of references to dissipate heat. See at least ¶¶. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
The combination of references fail to explicitly disclose:
wherein the housing has one or more heat sinks on an external surface, the heat sinks comprising one or more fins extending radially outwards from the external surface.
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to dissipate heat. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in the combination of references to dissipate heat. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
further disclose:
wherein the generator is an AC generator and the propulsion apparatus further comprises a rectifier electrically connected between the generator and the control unit to convert the generated alternating current to direct current. See at least: : (76, 77; Fig 7)
Regarding Claim ,
further disclose:
wherein the drive motor is an AC motor and the propulsion apparatus further comprises an inverter electrically connected between the control unit and the drive motor to convert the direct current from the battery bank to alternating current. See at least: : (76, 77; Fig 7)
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over , and Howard as applied above in view of Weber (US2022/0068056).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the control unit is configured to be switchable between a first operational mode wherein the first battery bank provides power to the drive motor and the second battery bank is charged by the generator, and a second operational mode wherein the second battery bank provides power to the drive motor and the first battery bank is charged by the generator, when the charge level in the battery bank providing power to the drive motor reaches a predetermined value as detected by one of the amp hour meters. See at least : ¶¶
fail to explicitly disclose:
a first amp hour meter to determine a charge level for the first battery bank; and a second amp hour meter to determine a charge level for the second battery bank;
The combination of references disclose:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of the combination of references. Namely, the technique of utilizing in order to measure a state of charge. See at least ¶¶.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of the combination of references would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would utilize in the combination of references to measure a state of charge. See at least ¶¶; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at (313)446-6607 (preferred) or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747