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 Claims
Applicant's amendment filed 7/2/26 (hereinafter Response) including amendments to the claims and specification has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20 have been amended, claim 12 has been cancelled, and claim 21 is new. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The specification objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 4/7/26 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn based on the amendments submitted in the Response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Based on the amendments and arguments presented in the Response the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-13 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites the phrase "the powershift reversing unity" which should be changed to "the powershift reversing unit". Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 3, 5, 7 – 9, 14, 15, and 17 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0277059 A1 to Akutsu et al (hereinafter Akutsu) in view of CN 106183765 B to Jian et al (hereinafter Jian), and further in view of US 2021/0265905 A1 to Jung Mayr et al (hereinafter Jungmayr).
Regarding claim 1, (see rejection for claim 14 below), claim 14 contains all limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 14.
Regarding claim 2, Akutsu as modified above further discloses the drivetrain of claim 1, further comprising [a control unit 2, 41, 42, 43 configured to operate the drivetrain] (Akutsu – Figs. 16, 17; paragraphs 0087, 0256, 0257, 0571).
Regarding claim 3, Akutsu as modified above further discloses the drivetrain of claim 1, further comprising [a set of power electronics 41, 42, 43, 44 in order to transmit the electrical power between the first electric machine, the energy store, and the stator of the magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage] (Akutsu – Figs. 15 – 17; paragraphs 0086, 0256, 0257 0571).
Regarding claim 5, (see rejection for claim 15), claim 15 contains all limitations of claim 5 and parent claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 7, (see rejection for claim 17), claim 17 contains all limitations of claim 7 and parent claim 1. Claim 7 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 8, (see rejection for claim 18), depending on claim 7, depending on claim 1, claim 18 contains all limitations of claim 8 and parent claims 7 and 1. Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 9, (see rejection for claim 19), depending on claim 7, depending on claim 1, claim 19 contains all limitations of claim 9 and parent claims 7 and 1. Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 19.
Regarding claim 14, Akutsu discloses [a vehicle VE4 having a drivetrain] (Akutsu – Fig. 15), comprising:
[a first electric machine 3] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraph 0572, e.g., “an electric motor”);
[an input shaft 61 connected to the first electric machine and a drive (DG, DW, 7)] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0007, 0204, 207, 0262);
[an output shaft 62 connected to the drive] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0007, 0458 – 0459); and
[a magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage 71 including a rotor 74 connected to the input shaft 61, a stator 73, and a modulation ring 75 between the rotor and stator, the modulation ring connected to the output shaft 62] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0261 – 0262; paragraph 0261 discloses that the modulation ring is comprised of “a soft magnetic material, such as a laminate of a plurality of steel plates”);
[the energy store 44 being connected to the stator 73 such that electrical power can be transmitted from the energy store 44 to the stator 73] (Akutsu – Fig. 17; paragraphs 0256 – 0257), [such that the drivetrain can be operated in a forward and a reverse traction mode] (Akutsu – paragraph 0319 discloses “a second rotating magnetic field” is generated in the magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage 71 by supplying electric power to the stator 73; paragraph 0321 discloses a rotational speed of the second rotating magnetic field of 71 as NMF2, Figs. 35 & 36 disclose NMF2 operating in a “direction of normal rotation”; Figs. 33 & 34 disclose NMF2 operating in a “direction of reverse rotation”; Fig. 15 & paragraphs 361 & 362 disclose 71 is mechanically connected to drive wheels DW; using the above information, one skilled in the art would understand that the drivetrain can be operated in forward and reverse traction modes), however Akutsu does not explicitly disclose the energy store is connected to the first electric machine or that the input shaft and the output shaft rotate in opposite directions.
Jian discloses [an energy store 402] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0028, “402-Battery”) connected to [a first electric machine 200] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0031, “a first motor”; paragraph 0011 discloses the first electric machine 200 is connected to the energy store 402).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of connecting a battery to multiple electric machines, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use what Jian teaches regarding the first electric machine 200 (Jian) being connected to the energy store 402 (Jian) to similarly connect the first electric machine 3 of Akutsu to the energy store 44 of Akutsu, which is within the skill of an ordinary artisan.
Jungmayr (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0023 – 0027) discloses a magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage, which is connected to an electric machine, that is substantially similar to the magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage that Akutsu (Fig. 15) discloses. Jungmayr (paragraph 0027) further discloses that it was well known in the art of magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stages, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stages can operate such that their respective output shafts are rotatable counter to the direction of rotation of their respective input shafts.
Although Akutsu describes various arrangements and capabilities of the magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage in paragraphs 0361 – 0364 and Figs. 33 – 37, Akutsu as modified above does not appear to explicitly include input and output shafts rotating in opposite directions to each other. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stages that Jungmayr’s disclosure above is substantially similar in design to Akutsu’s magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stage, and one so skilled would have understood that the Akutsu/Jian vehicle drivetrain is capable of operating in a similar manner as that explicitly disclosed by Jungmayr such that the energy store is connected to the stator such that electrical power can be transmitted from the energy store to the stator to effect rotation of the modulation ring in a direction counter to a direction of rotation of the input shaft, to effect rotation of, the output shaft in the direction counter to the direction of rotation of the input shaft.
Regarding claim 15, Akutsu as modified above further discloses the vehicle of claim 14, wherein [the first electric machine 71 is connected via the input shaft 61 to a power take-off 31] (Akutsu – paragraph 0259; Fig. 15; paragraph 0037 discloses that the power take-off 31 is “an accessory” and is driven by input of motive power), and [the modulation ring 75 is connected via the output shaft 62 to an axle 7] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0156, 0362).
Regarding claim 17, Akutsu as modified above further discloses the vehicle of claim 14, further comprising [a first transmission unit PGS and a second transmission unit PS1] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0201, 0207, 0326, 0355).
Regarding claim 18, Akutsu as modified above discloses all limitations, including the vehicle of claim 17, wherein [at least one of the first transmission unit PGS and the second transmission unit PS1 includes a reverse gear] (See rejection of claim 14, specifically that the drivetrain of Akutsu can be operated in a forward and a reverse traction mode, which one skilled in the art of magnetic-electrical epicyclic transmission stages would understand as the vehicle of claim 17 having at least a forward gear and a reverse gear).
Regarding claim 19, Akutsu as modified above discloses all limitations, including the vehicle of claim 17, wherein [the first electric machine 3 is connected via the input shaft 61 to the second transmission unit PS1, and the modulation ring 75 is connected via the output shaft 62 to the first transmission unit PGS] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraph 0259; paragraph 0207).
Claims 4 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu , Jian, and Jungmayr; alternatively unpatentable over Akutsu, Jian, and Jungmayr further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice.
Regarding claim 21, Akutsu further discloses wherein [the output shaft is a hollow shaft and the input shaft is a solid shaft, and wherein the input shaft is arranged in the output shaft such that the output shaft is coaxial with respect to the input shaft] (Akutsu – Fig. 15 shows a solid shaft input 61; also see paragraph 0205). Therefore the Akutsu driveway as modified above includes all claimed limitations.
Additionally, and in the alternative, if an argument may be made that the limitation “a solid shaft” is intended to convey a different meaning such as possibly a shaft expressly having no hollow spaces contained within, Examiner takes Official Notice of the fact that it is old and well known in the art of vehicle drivetrains that an input shaft is solid when arranged within a hollow output shaft such that the hollow output shaft is coaxial with respect to the solid input shaft. One of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle drivetrains would have recognized that input shafts having hollow spaces contained within could have been substituted for solid shaft input shafts and that the results of the substitution would have been predictable because both serve the purpose of transmitting motive power.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of vehicle drivetrains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a solid input shaft instead of an input shaft comprising hollow portions therein because it is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another with the predictable result of providing a means to transfer motive power within the drivetrain of the vehicle of claim 14. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art of vehicle drivetrains would understand at least one of the advantages that solid input shafts have over hollow input shafts in that solid input shafts are easier and cheaper to manufacture and are more mechanically/structurally sound than hollow input shafts.
Regarding claim 4, (see rejection for claim 21), claim 21 contains all limitations of claim 4 and parent claim 1. Claim 4 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 21.
Claims 6, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu, in view of Jian, further in view of Jungmayr, and further in view of Akutsu.
Regarding claim 6, (see rejection for claim 16), claim 16 contains all limitations of claim 6 and parent claim 1. Claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 10, (see rejection for claim 20), the drivetrain of claim 7 depending on claim 1; claim 20 contains all limitations of claim 10 and parent claims 7 and 1. Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 20.
Regarding claim 16, Akutsu as modified above discloses the vehicle of claim 14 but does not disclose that the first electric machine 3 is connected via the input shaft 61 to an axle, and the modulation ring 75 is connected via the output shaft 62 to a power take-off.
Akutsu discloses [a vehicle VE5] (Fig. 38) wherein [an electric machine 21 is connected via another input shaft 6 to an axle 7] (Akutsu – Fig. 38; paragraphs 0155 – 0157; Examiner interprets the axle 7 in Fig. 38 to be equivalent to numbered element 7 in Fig. 55), and [another modulation ring 95 is connected via another output shaft 4 to a power take-off 31] (Akutsu – paragraph 0037 discloses the power take-off 31 as “an accessory” and is driven by input of motive power; paragraph 0373, “95…is mechanically connected to…31”).
Using what Akutsu discloses about the vehicle VE5 above, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle of claim 14 such that PU1 and SP1 in Fig. 15 (Akutsu) are switched and PU1 remains connected to PU2 and SP1 remains connected to SP2. Doing so would switch connections of the input shaft 61 and the output shaft 62 of the vehicle of claim 14 such that the first electric machine 3 would be connected via the input shaft 61 to the axle 7, and the modulation ring 75 would be connected, via the output shaft 62, to the power take-off 31.
One skilled in the art could do so using known methods, expecting predictable results, and would appreciate the ability to control the amount of power sent from the modulation ring 75 to the power take-off 31 via the output shaft 62. One skilled in the art would further appreciate a simpler connection between the first electric machine 3 and the axle 7 via the input shaft 61 while also maintaining control of the amount of power sent to the axle by operation of [element referenced by characters “PGS”] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraphs 0207; Examiner notes that the above modifications would connect the first electric machine 3, via the input shaft 61, to PGS).
Regarding claim 20, Akutsu as modified above further discloses the vehicle of claim 17, wherein [the modulation ring 75 is connected via the output shaft 62 to the second transmission unit PS1] (Akutsu – Fig. 15; paragraph 0262); claim 16 contains all remaining limitations (see rejection for claim 16, specifically the modification of the vehicle of claim 14, wherein the first electric machine 3 is connected via the input shaft 61 to PGS, i.e., the first electric machine 3 is connected via the input shaft 61 to the first transmission unit PGS).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu, in view of Jian, further in view of Jungmayr, and further in view of EP 0246511 A2 to Rack.
Regarding claim 11, Akutsu as modified above discloses the drivetrain of claim 1 but does not disclose a powershift reversing unit.
Rack discloses [a powershift reversing unit] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0010, “…a powershift reversing transmission…”) [for reversing the direction of travel] (paragraph 0017, discloses the powershift reversing unit causes an output shaft to rotate in a direction opposite to an input shaft at a ratio of 1 to -1). Rack further discloses [the powershift reversing unit having a planetary gear set] (Figs. 1 & 2; paragraph 0011).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the powershift reversing unit of Rack into the drivetrain of claim 1 using known methods because doing so would bring no change to the functionality of the powershift reversing unit of Rack, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, one skilled in the art of powershift reversing units would understand that doing so would advantageously provide the ability to instantaneously shift between forward and reverse directions without using a clutch or having to stop.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akutsu, in view of Jian, further in view of Jungmayr, and further in view of US 2010/0170732 A1 to Glaser et al (hereinafter Glaser).
Regarding claim 13, Akutsu as modified above discloses the drivetrain of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose connections between front and rear axles, although Akutsu does disclose [a differential gear DG] (Fig. 15; paragraph 0142) [comprising left and right side gears DS having gear teeth, and side gears DS are connected to left and right axles 7] (Fig. 15; paragraph 0156).
Glaser discloses [a rear-axle bevel gear drive 20 is connected to an output shaft 84] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0049), and [the output shaft 84 is connected to a toothing of a front-axle drive 18] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0039 discloses “front axles and rear axles with bevel gears” and one skilled in the art would understand that bevel gears have teething; paragraph 0053 discloses the output shaft 84 is connected to a shaft 102; paragraph 0052 discloses the shaft 102 is connected to a shaft 110 and the shaft 110 transmits mechanical torque to the toothing, e.g., of a bevel gear, of the front-axle drive 18).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use known methods to combine both the front-axle drive 18 and the rear-axle bevel gear drive 20 of Glaser with the drivetrain of claim 1 such that the rear-axle bevel gear drive 20 (Glaser) is connected to the output shaft 62 (Akutsu) of the drivetrain of claim 1, and the output shaft 62 (Akutsu) of the drivetrain of claim 1 is connected to the toothing of the front-axle drive 18 (Glaser).
Doing so would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art and would advantageously allow the drivetrain of claim 1 to deliver motive power to two axles. Furthermore, bevel gears are well known in the art of drivetrains. One skilled in the art would use bevel gears to transmit motive power to axles of drivetrains because of at least one of the following: bevel gears are in widespread use, availability of replacement parts, and/or maintenance schedules of drivetrain components comprising bevel gears are well known in the art of drivetrains.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Response directed toward the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims under Akutsu in view of Jian and further in view of Jungmayr (Response pp. 8 – 10) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant takes the position that Jungmayr does not disclose output shafts rotatable counter to the direction of input shafts because Applicant believes that Jungmayr’s device disclosed in Fig. 1 does not comprise what would be considered an input shaft. However, Jungmayr states in paragraph 0028:
…shown in FIG. 1, the hollow shaft 11…is… also part of the inner, rapidly rotating rotor Rl of the magnetic gear 30. For this reason, the second permanent magnet arrangement 13 which, together with the hollow shaft 11, forms the inner, rapidly rotating rotor Rl (that is, the input) of the magnetic gear 30…
and Jungmayr also states in paragraph 0027: the shaft 11 and the driven shaft 23 rotate in opposing directions. Jungmayr does disclose in Fig. 1 and paragraphs 0027, 0028 that an input shaft rotates opposite to the direction of rotation of an output shaft. As discussed above, Jungmayr is referenced as an analogous device to that of Akutsu in order to point out that Akutsu’s magnetic gear is capable rotating the input shaft and the output shaft in opposite directions.
In response to applicant's argument at the bottom of page 9 of the Response that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to Applicant's argument that the skilled person would not modify Akutsu’s input/output shafts using the teachings of Jungmayr the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, as discussed above, the modified combination of Akutsu/Jian does disclose that the input shaft and output shaft of Akutsu rotate in opposite directions and Jungmayr was merely used as an exemplary reference. For at least the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments on pp. 8 – 10 are not persuasive.
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 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 Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights