DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/383,922 filed on October 26th, 2023. Claims 1-8 are pending.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections and/or rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 5-6), please change the recitation of “a forward or side mounted battery and control module keeping weight towards front of vehicle” to - - a forward or side mounted battery and control module keeping weight towards a front of the vehicle - - to correct various minor informalities regarding antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 2 (line 2), please change the recitation of “the longitudinally mounted electric mot drive” to - - the longitudinally mounted electric [[mot]] motor drive - - to correct a minor informality.
Regarding Claim 4 (line 7), please change the recitation of “forward of the driver seat for driving both left and right rear wheels” to - - forward of the driver seat for driving both of the left and right rear wheels - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 4 (line 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “wherein the lateral mounted electric motor drive unit is arranged a front wheel hub centerline” it is generally unclear how the lateral mounted electric motor drive unit is arranged relative to the front wheel hub centerline. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the lateral mounted electric motor drive unit is arranged along a front wheel hub centerline” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 3, in the recitation of “wherein the forward or side mounted battery and control module is arranged forward of a driver seat of the vehicle” it is unclear how the side mounted battery and control module (Fig. 1, 105) is arranged forward of the driver seat of the vehicle (see Fig. 1 of Applicant’s disclosure). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the forward to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Regarding Claim 8 (line 1), in the recitation of “The chassis configuration of claim,” it is unclear which claim claim 8 is dependent upon. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “The chassis configuration of claim 7,” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reiff (DE 10 2019 008 222). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Reiff teaches a chassis arrangement (see Fig. 3) for a vehicle (see Fig. 3 and [0024]), comprising:
one or both of a lateral mounted electric motor drive unit (“electric machine” 24) for driving front wheels (“wheels” 20) and a longitudinally mounted electric motor drive unit (“electric machine” 28) for driving rear wheels (“wheels” 22) utilizing existing rear drivetrain (“axles” 16); and
a forward (“energy storage device” 54) or side mounted battery and control module (54) keeping weight towards front of vehicle ([0024] – “Fig. 3 shows a third embodiment of the drive device 10. In the third embodiment, a third axle 50 is provided, which has third wheels 52. The third axle 50 is a non-driven axle, which is arranged, for example, in the longitudinal direction of the vehicle in front of the drive axles 14 and 16…It is evident that the drive unit 10 has an energy storage device 54 designed for storing electrical energy or electrical current, which is designed, for example, as a battery. In order to operate the respective electric machine 24, 26 or 28 in motor mode and thus as an electric motor, the respective electric machine 24, 26 or 28 is supplied with electrical energy which is stored in the energy storage device 54”).
Regarding Claim 2, Reiff teaches the chassis arrangement of claim 1,
comprising both the lateral mounted electric motor drive unit (Fig. 3, 24) and the longitudinally mounted electric mot[or] drive (28),
wherein the lateral mounted electric motor drive unit (24) is arranged a front wheel hub centerline (see Fig. 3; see 112(b) rejection above).
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama (WO 2020/261849). See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Nakayama teaches a chassis arrangement (see Figs. 1-2) for a vehicle (“electric work vehicle” A), comprising:
one (“motor” M) or both of a lateral mounted electric motor drive unit for driving front wheels and a longitudinally mounted electric motor drive unit (“motor” M) for driving rear wheels (“rear wheels” 11) utilizing existing rear drivetrain (rear drivetrain seen in Fig. 1; [0050] – “The transmission device T changes the speed of the driving force received from the motor M and transmits it to the left and right rear wheels 11”); and
a forward or side mounted battery and control module (“driving battery” 4) keeping weight towards front of vehicle (A; see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nakayama teaches the chassis arrangement of claim 1,
wherein the forward or side mounted battery and control module (Fig. 1, 4) is arranged forward of a driver seat (“driver’s seat” 31) of the vehicle (A; see 112(b) rejection above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims ---4-7 are allowed.
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office Action.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Rubanovich (US 2023/0093742) and Casey (US 7,441,623) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar longitudinally orientated electric drive motor configurations related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655