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 .
This is the first action on the merits for application 18/426,409. Clams 1-13 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5, “the axle” should be changed to - -the front axle- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 4, line 3, “a front axle”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3, “a locking differential” should be changed to - -the locking differential- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 5, lines 2-3, “a locking differential”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4, “increase driving range” should be changed to - -increase the driving range- - for claim consistency (see, for reference, Claim 1, line 12, “a driving range”). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high” in claim 12, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “high” torque.
The term “low” in claim 12, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes a “low” speed.
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, 2, 7-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MATSUNAGA et al. (US 2014/0250990 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses an electrified vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: a front electric drive module (combination of elements 4, 10 and portion of 7 left of element 7a in Fig. 1) configured to drive front wheels (3); a rear EDM (combination of elements 6, 12 and 13) configured to drive rear wheels (5); a high voltage battery system (11) configured to power the front EDM and the rear EDM; an internal combustion engine (2); and a motor/generator (9) coupled to an output of the internal combustion engine (Fig. 1) and configured to selectively generate power to charge the high voltage battery system and/or provide power directly to the front and/or rear EDMs (paragraph [0022], “electric power generated by the motor generator 9 can charge the driving battery 11 …and can be supplied to the front motor 4 and the rear motor 6”), wherein the front and rear EDMs provide the EV with four-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive capability (paragraph [0018], “vehicle…is a four-wheel-drive vehicle”), and wherein the motor/generator is configured to extend a driving range of the EV by charging the high voltage battery system (paragraph [0035], “generate electric power and charge the driving battery 11 when…lower than an allowable range”).
Regarding Claim 2, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses a front axle disconnect configured to selectively disconnect powerflow from the front EDM to the front wheels (when 7a is disengaged and motor 4 is not operated to provide torque).
Regarding Claim 7, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses a controller (20) configured to selectively operate the EV in an EV Mode where the front EDM and the rear EDM are operated to provide the four-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive capability (paragraph [0032], “EV mode…4 and…6 are driven…to cause the vehicle to travel”).
Regarding Claim 8, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses a controller (20) configured to selectively operate the EV in a Range Extended EV Mode where the internal combustion engine and the motor/generator are operated to charge the high voltage battery system to increase driving range of the EV (paragraph [0035], “driving the engine 2 to generate electric power and charge the driving battery 11 when…lower than an allowable range”).
Regarding Claim 9, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses the front EDM is located on a front axle (8).
Regarding Claim 10, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses the rear EDM is located on a rear axle (14).
Regarding Claim 11, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses each of the front and rear EDMs includes an electric traction motor (4; 6), a power inverter module (10; 12), and a gearbox (portion of 7 left of 7a in Fig. 1; 13).
Regarding Claim 13, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses the EV is a range extended electrified vehicle (1; paragraph [0035], “driving the engine 2 to generate electric power and charge the driving battery 11 when…lower than an allowable range”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUNAGA et al. (US 2014/0250990 A1) in view of TANAKA et al. (US 2006/0108166 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses the EV of claim 1, described in detail above, but does not disclose an electronic locking differential operably associated with a rear axle and configured to selectively operate as a locking differential for the rear axle.
TANAKA et al. discloses a hybrid four-wheel-drive vehicle (Fig. 1) including an electronic locking differential (5) operably associated with a rear axle (31) and configured to selectively operate as a locking differential for the rear axle (paragraph [0049], “locking the rear limited differential”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the EV of MATSUNAGA et al. an electronic locking differential operably associated with a rear axle and configured to selectively operate as a locking differential for the rear axle, as disclosed by TANAKA et al., since the simple substitution of one known differential means for an equivalent other yields predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, MATSUNAGA et al. as modified by TANAKA et al. above discloses the EV of claim 5, described in detail above, and further comprising a controller (MATSUNAGA et al., Fig. 1, (20); TANAKA et al., Fig. 1, (8)) configured to selectively operate in an Off-Road Mode (note, while Claim 6 only limits the “Off-Road Mode” by the electronic locking differential operation, nothing in MATSUNAGA et al. nor TANAKA et al. precludes an off-road use) where the electronic locking differential operates as a locking differential for the rear axle (TANAKA et al., paragraph [0049], “locking the rear limited differential”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUNAGA et al. (US 2014/0250990 A1) in view of LAFORCE (US 2018/0216713 A1).
Regarding Claim 12 as best understood, MATSUNAGA et al. discloses the EV of claim 11, described in detail above, but does not disclose the gearbox is a multi-speed gearbox configured to provide a high torque, low speed gear ratio to facilitate off-road driving.
LAFORCE discloses a motor driven axle system (see Fig. 1) including a multi-speed gearbox (20) configured to provide a high torque, low speed gear ratio to facilitate off-road driving (paragraph [027], “provides multiple speeds”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the EV of MATSUNAGA et al. the gearbox being a multi-speed gearbox configured to provide a high torque, low speed gear ratio to facilitate off-road driving, as disclosed by LAFORCE, for the predictable result of providing varying torque multiplication to the front and rear wheels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
TATEKAWA et al. (US 2023/0011741 A1) discloses a hybrid all-wheel-drive vehicle (see ABSTRACT).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm (CST).
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571)270-3415. 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.
EDWIN YOUNG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/Edwin A Young/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655