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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tarasinski et al (US PG Pub No. 2008/0087480).
Regarding claim 1, Tarasinski teaches An electric power unit, comprising:
an electric motor; (18 figure 1)
a motor shaft (14 figure 1 paragraph 6 rotor of e motor is locked in rotation with ICE paragraph 25) disposed in the electric motor;
an output shaft that outputs power of the electric power unit; (38 figure 1)
a first power transmission mechanism (area around 18) that is connected to the motor shaft (14) and the output shaft (38), and transmits power of the motor shaft to the output shaft; and
a damper disposed in the first power transmission mechanism (26 figure 1 paragraph 26 torsion damper).
Regarding claim 6, Tarasinski teaches further comprising a control unit that controls the electric motor so that a torque of the electric motor changes periodically while a fixed drive signal is received. (paragraph 7 non-uniformities of drivetrain can be minimized)
Regarding claim 7, Tarasinski teaches wherein
the damper has a natural period;
and the control unit is configured to control the electric motor so that a fluctuation period of the torque of the electric motor is a predetermined set period based on the natural period of the damper. (paragraph 7 non-uniformities of drivetrain can be minimized)
Regarding claim 10, Tarasinski teaches further comprising another damper provided in the first power transmission mechanism (paragraph 26).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarasinski et al (US PG Pub No. 2008/0087480) in view of Uehara (US PG Pub no. 2020/0248779)
Regarding claim 2, Tarasinski teaches a torsion damper (paragaprh 26)
Tarasinski does not explicitly teach however Uehara teaches wherein: the damper is a torsion damper including:
a first rotor; (paragraph 9 input side rotor; 10 figure 3 paragraph 44)
a second rotor arranged coaxial with the first rotor; and (paragraph 9 output side rotor; 20 figure 4 spline hub paragraph 50-53)
a spring that is interposed between the first rotor and the second rotor and transmits a torque of the first rotor to the second rotor. (paragraph 9 damper elastic part)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tarasinski based on the teachings of Uehara to teach wherein: the damper is a torsion damper including: a first rotor; a second rotor arranged coaxial with the first rotor; and a spring that is interposed between the first rotor and the second rotor and transmits a torque of the first rotor to the second rotor. The motivation would be to inhibit damage of vehicle without reducing drivability (Uehara paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 4, Tarasinski teaches the motor shaft (14 figure 1 paragraph 26 torsion damper)
Tarasinski does not explicitly teach however Uehara teaches wherein the first rotor (10 figure 3) and the second rotor (20 figure 4) are supported on Tarasinskis motor shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tarasinski based the teachings of Uehara to teach wherein the first rotor and the second rotor are supported on the motor shaft. The motivation would be to inhibit damage of vehicle without reducing drivability (Uehara paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 5, Tarasinki teaches the output shaft (38)
Tarasinski does not explicitly teach however Uehara teaches wherein the first rotor (10 figure 3) and the second rotor (20 figure 4) are supported on the output shaft.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tarasinski based on the teachings of Uehara to teach wherein the first rotor andthe second rotor are supported on the output shaft. The motivation would be to inhibit damage of vehicle without reducing drivability (Uehara paragraph 8).
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-9, 11-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C. JIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9898. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM.
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at (571) 272-1196. 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.
/GEORGE C JIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747