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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on October 24, 2025. No claims have been amended. Claims 14-18 have been added. Claims 1-18 are now pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (US 20200325971 A1) herein Matsuoka, in view of Balboni et al. (US 20170305426 A1) herein Balboni.
In regards to Claim 1, Matsuoka discloses the following:
1. A drive unit for moving a vehicle forward and rearward, (see at least [0054] “forward rotational direction… forwardly rotated to move the vehicle forward” and [0055] “reversely rotated to move the vehicle backward”) the drive unit comprising:
a first drive part (see Fig. 1) including a first electric motor (see Fig. 1 and [0025] “prime mover 2 is a motor”) and a first torque converter, (see at least Fig. 1 and [0027] “torque converter 3”) the first electric motor configured to be rotated in a first rotational direction so as to move the vehicle forward, the first electric motor configured to be rotated in a second rotational direction so as to move the vehicle rearward, (see [0054]-[0055], as previously cited)
the first torque converter configured to amplify a torque generated by the first electric motor when the torque generated by the first electric motor is directed in the first rotational direction; (see at least [0027] “torque converter 3 amplifies the torque inputted”) and
a second drive part including a second electric motor and a second torque converter, the second electric motor configured to be rotated in the first rotational direction and the second rotational direction, the second torque converter configured to amplify a torque generated by the second electric motor when the torque generated by the second electric motor is directed in the second rotational direction. (obvious duplication of parts, see above citations)
Matsuoka discloses a first drive part, as claimed. Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose a second drive part, as claimed. However, there is no structural difference between the components of the first drive part and the second drive part, as claimed. The only difference between the first drive part and the second drive part is functional; the explicit torque amplification is in a first rotational direction for the first drive part, and torque amplification in a second reversing rotational direction for the second drive part.
It is further noted that Matsuoka discloses torque amplification in both directions of rotation, per [0054]-[0055], as cited.
It should be noted that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts for details.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the parts of Matsuoka for the other direction of rotation, with predictable results, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction. (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005])
Further, for clarity and for the sake of compact prosecution, it is further noted that Balboni teaches a first motor (Fig. 1 and [0063] “hydrostatic motor 4 drivingly engaged with a first shaft 5”) a first torque converter (see Fig. 1 and [0063] “hydraulic clutching device 9 drivingly engaged with the first shaft 5 through gears 10, 11, 23”), a second motor (Fig. 1 and [0063] “hydrostatic motor 7 drivingly engaged with a second shaft 8”), a second torque converter see Fig. 1, (see Fig. 1 and [0063] “an output shaft 14 drivingly engaged with the second shaft 8 through gears 15, 16”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Balboni with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a dual motor drive unit that generates smooth motor engagements with the output shaft such that mechanical wear of the mechanical transmission is reduced and a jerk caused by the engagement process is minimized. (Balboni, [0011])
In regards to Claim 2, Matsuoka discloses the following:
2. The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the first drive part includes a first clutch, the first clutch configured to allow transmission of the torque generated by the first electric motor when the torque generated by the first electric motor is directed in the second rotational direction, (see at least Fig. 3 and [0028] “one-way clutch 35”) the first clutch configured to block transmission of the torque generated by the first electric motor when the torque generated by the first electric motor is directed in the first rotational direction. (see at least [0054] “[0054] The first one-way clutch 35 is disposed between the cover 31 and the turbine 33. The first one-way clutch 35 makes the cover 31 rotatable relative to the turbine 33 in the forward rotational direction.” And [0055] “when the prime mover 2 is reversely rotated to move the vehicle backward, the first one-way clutch 35 is configured such that the cover 31 is rotated unitarily with the turbine 33. Because of this, in backward movement of the vehicle, the first one-way clutch 35 transmits a torque from the cover 31 to the turbine 33.”)
In regards to Claim 3, Matsuoka suggests the following:
3. The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the second drive part includes a second clutch, (see at least Fig. 3 and [0056] “second one-way clutch 36” the second clutch configured to allow transmission of the torque generated by the second electric motor when the torque generated by the second electric motor is directed in the first rotational direction, the second clutch configured to block transmission of the torque generated by the second electric motor when the torque generated by the second electric motor is directed in the second rotational direction. (see at least [0056] “The second one-way clutch 36 is configured to make the stator 34 rotatable in the forward rotational direction. By contrast, the second one-way clutch 36 makes the stator 34 non-rotatable in the reverse rotational direction.”)
See claim 1 for necessary obvious modifications to Matsuoka and motivational statements.
In regards to Claim 4, Matsuoka is silent, but Balboni teaches the following:
4. The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the first and second drive parts are different in positional relation between each of the first and second electric motors and each of the first and second torque converters. (see at least Fig. 1 and citations to claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Balboni with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a dual motor drive unit that generates smooth motor engagements with the output shaft such that mechanical wear of the mechanical transmission is reduced and a jerk caused by the engagement process is minimized. (Balboni, [0011])
In regards to Claim 5, Matsuoka suggests the following:
5. The drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the first and second drive parts are identical in positional relation between each of the first and second electric motors and each of the first and second torque converters. (see citations to claim 1.)
Matsuoka discloses a first drive part, as claimed. Matsuoka does not explicitly disclose a second drive part, as claimed. However, there is no structural difference between the components of the first drive part and the second drive part, as claimed.
It should be noted that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts for details.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated the parts of Matsuoka, identically, with predictable results, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction. (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005])
In regards to Claim 6, Matsuoka is silent, but Balboni teaches the following:
6. The drive unit according to claim 5, further comprising:
a power transmission mechanism configured to transmit the torque inputted thereto from each of the first and second drive parts to an output unit, (see at least Figs. 2 and 6 “output shaft 14”) wherein
Matsuoka discloses the following:
the power transmission mechanism includes a reverse gear through which rotation of the first or second electric motor is outputted to the output unit after the rotation is reversed in direction. (see at least [0091] “when the input shaft 5 and the output shaft 6 are reversely rotated, in other words, when the vehicle is backwardly moved, the clutch 401 makes the ring gear 405 non-rotatable, whereby the amplifying function works in the planetary gear mechanism 400. Because of this, the torque, outputted from the prime mover 2, is transmitted to the drive wheels 101 through the reducer 4, while being amplified by the planetary gear mechanism 400.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Balboni with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a dual motor drive unit that generates smooth motor engagements with the output shaft such that mechanical wear of the mechanical transmission is reduced and a jerk caused by the engagement process is minimized. (Balboni, [0011])
In regards to Claim 7, Matsuoka is silent, but Balboni teaches the following:
7. The drive unit according to claim 1, further comprising:
a controller configured to control the first and second electric motors, (see at least [0063] “electronic control unit 19”) wherein
the controller is configured to execute a first forward movement mode such that the first electric motor is rotated in the first rotational direction, while the second electric motor is rotated in the first rotational direction. (see at least [0063] “control unit 19 is configured to receive the electric signals from the pressure sensor 13 and from the accelerator pedal 18.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Balboni with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a dual motor drive unit that generates smooth motor engagements with the output shaft such that mechanical wear of the mechanical transmission is reduced and a jerk caused by the engagement process is minimized. (Balboni, [0011])
In regards to Claim 12, Matsuoka as modified by Balboni teaches the following:
12. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a first rearward movement mode (see previous citations to Matsuoka in claim 1)
Matsuoka is silent, but Balboni teaches the following:
such that the first electric motor is rotated in the second rotational direction, while the second electric motor is rotated in the second rotational direction. (see at least [0063] “control unit 19 is configured to receive the electric signals from the pressure sensor 13 and from the accelerator pedal 18.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Balboni with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a dual motor drive unit that generates smooth motor engagements with the output shaft such that mechanical wear of the mechanical transmission is reduced and a jerk caused by the engagement process is minimized. (Balboni, [0011])
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Balboni, as applied, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210094403 A1) herein Lee.
In regards to Claim 8, Matsuoka is silent, but Lee teaches the following:
8. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a second forward movement mode such that the first electric motor is rotated in the first rotational direction, while the second electric motor is stopped. (see at least [0022] “releasing, by the controller, the second clutch after increasing the torque of the second motor to a first clutch torque while maintaining the speed of the first motor, in the high gear driving state in which the second clutch is engaged and the first motor is driven; maintaining, by the controller, the torque of the first motor and the torque of the second motor constant while reducing the speed of the second motor to 0 and increasing the speed of the first motor”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lee with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a transmission with a simple configuration, where no shift shock occurs, and heat generation is small. (Lee, [0006])
In regards to Claim 9, Matsuoka is silent, but Lee teaches the following:
9. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a third forward movement mode such that the first electric motor is idled, while the second electric motor is rotated in the first rotational direction. (see at least [0022] “releasing, by the controller, the second clutch after increasing the torque of the second motor to a first clutch torque while maintaining the speed of the first motor, in the high gear driving state in which the second clutch is engaged and the first motor is driven; maintaining, by the controller, the torque of the first motor and the torque of the second motor constant while reducing the speed of the second motor to 0 and increasing the speed of the first motor”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lee with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a transmission with a simple configuration, where no shift shock occurs, and heat generation is small. (Lee, [0006])
In regards to Claim 13, Matsuoka is silent, but Lee teaches the following:
13. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a second rearward movement mode such that the first electric motor is stopped, while the second electric motor is rotated in the second rotational direction. (see at least [0022] “releasing, by the controller, the second clutch after increasing the torque of the second motor to a first clutch torque while maintaining the speed of the first motor, in the high gear driving state in which the second clutch is engaged and the first motor is driven; maintaining, by the controller, the torque of the first motor and the torque of the second motor constant while reducing the speed of the second motor to 0 and increasing the speed of the first motor”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Lee with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing a transmission with a simple configuration, where no shift shock occurs, and heat generation is small. (Lee, [0006])
In regards to Claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are the same or similar to those of claim 9, and is therefore rejected per claim 9, outlined above.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Balboni, as applied, in further view of Wakashiro et al. (US 20070254776 A1) herein Wakashiro.
In regards to Claim 10, Matsuoka is silent, but Wakashiro teaches the following:
10. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a first braking mode such that in deceleration during forward movement, the first electric motor is caused to perform a regenerative action, while the second electric motor is stopped. (see at least [0132] “S-REGEN mode… [where] the first motor M1 is generating electric power (i.e., in the regeneration mode), [and] the second motor M2 is stopped”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wakashiro with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing most efficient driving in consideration of the operation state of the generator or the motor. (Wakashiro, [0008])
In regards to Claim 11, Matsuoka is silent, but Wakashiro teaches the following:
11. The drive unit according to claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to execute a second braking mode such that in deceleration during forward movement, the first electric motor is caused to perform a regenerative action, while the second electric motor is rotated in the second rotational direction. (see at least [0132] “S-REGEN mode… [where] the first motor M1 is generating electric power (i.e., in the regeneration mode), [and] the second motor M2 is stopped”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Wakashiro with the invention of Matsuoka, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enabling efficient torque transmission in a forward rotational direction and a reverse rotational direction (Matsuoka, [0004]-[0005]) and/or with the motivation of providing most efficient driving in consideration of the operation state of the generator or the motor. (Wakashiro, [0008])
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka in view of Balboni as applied to claims 1-7, in further view of Lee as applied to claims 8-9 and 13-14, and in further view of Wakashiro as applied to claims 10-11.
In regards to claims 15-18, the limitations of claims 15-18 are the same or similar to those of claims 10-13, respectively, and are therefore rejected per claims 10-13, as outlined above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Office respectfully reminds the applicant that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to arguments on page 6 of Applicant arguments that Matsuoka does not disclose torque amplification in both directions of rotation, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Applicant’s citations to a configuration of Matsuoka [0007] does appear to disclose a singular direction of torque amplification, it should be noted that Matsuoka discloses a plurality of configurations (see at least [0007]-[0010]), modifications (see at least [0080]-[0091]) and embodiments throughout. Applicant arguments do not address the embodiment cited by the Examiner, Matsuoka [0055]-[0056], in any meaningful way. A review of Matsuoka [0055]-[0056] does appear to disclose torque amplification in both directions of rotation, as described. Therefore, it is the position of the Examiner that Matsuoka discloses reversing both with and without torque amplification, in what appears to be two separate embodiments. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Further, it should be noted that this is not relevant to the overall thrust of the rejection of claim 1: Matsuoka discloses a first drive part including… a first torque converter… configured to amplify a torque generated by the first electric motor when the torque generated by the first electric motor is directed in the first rotational direction, as claimed. Applicant does not claim torque amplification in the second rotational direction of the first drive part.
This may only be relevant to the duplication of parts rejection of claim 1, wherein the only difference between the components and operation of the first drive part and the second drive part is the torque amplification direction, i.e. the first drive part amplifies torque in the first direction of travel (i.e. forward), and the second drive part amplifies torque in the second direction of travel (i.e. in reverse). It is ultimately neither necessary nor relevant if the disclosures of Matsuoka to disclose torque amplification in both directions, because torque amplification of the claimed second drive part is also only claimed in a single direction, merely opposite of the torque amplification of the first drive part.
As outlined in the rejection above, the rejection of claim 1 is essentially that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to duplicate the components of Matsuoka into a second drive unit that generates torque amplification in the reverse direction of travel because there is no new and unexpected result is produced by generating torque amplification in the reverse direction of travel. A single drive unit that produces torque amplification in both directions is not necessary for this obviousness rejection.
Applicant has not addressed the obviousness rejection outlined above. Further, Applicant has also not addressed the rejection of claim 1 in view of Matsuoka in view of Balboni, also outlined above, provided for clarity and the sake of compact prosecution. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments do not identify a proper basis for finding any rejection improper. Accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
February 6, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669