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 .
Response to Amendment
The reply filed 5/25/2026, amended claims 1-4. Claims 1-13 are pending herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 5/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments not rendered moot by the amendments have been addressed below.
On pages 7-10 of the response, Applicants state: “Referring to Figs. 2, 6, and 7 and Column 5, lines 38-46 of Mita, Mita merely discloses that the power transmission mechanism (6 and 7) is arranged to the left of the electric motor (5), and the power conversion device (12/12') is arranged to the rear of the electric motor (5/5'). Applicant respectfully submits that even under the BRI, the rear of a vehicle should not be interpreted as the vehicle width direction. Therefore, Mita does not disclose "the power conversion device and the power transmission mechanism are respectively arranged on one side and another side of the electric motor in the vehicle width direction" of claim 1. Referring to Fig. 7 of Mita, Mita merely discloses that the wirings (al', a2', and a3') are led out from the power conversion device (12') in the front-rear direction. Referring to Fig. 2 of Mita, Mita merely discloses that the wirings al, a2, and a3 are led out from the power transmission mechanism (7 and 6) in the vehicle width direction. Therefore, Mita does not disclose "the connector part is arranged such that the power wiring is led out from the power conversion device in the vehicle width direction" of claim 1.”
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the Mita reference provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Specifically, while the Mita reference does not specifically recite that the cited components are "led out in the width direction” as amended, it is clear from the disclosure and cited figures that the cited components are arranged in this manner (See, e.g., Mita: Fig.1-8; see below).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
536
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
One of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed limitations as the Applicant argues. Applicants are reminded, that [t]he invention disclosed in [a] written description may be outstanding in its field, but the name of the game is the claim. In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Specifically, if Applicants believe that an invention has differences over the prior art, particularly regarding connections and arrangement of the claimed elements, Applicants must find a way to convey this argument in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See, e.g., In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The previous objections to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of Claims 1-13 under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the rejections that remain are detailed below.
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 1-13 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 1/2/3/4, the claim recites the limitations: “is led out" (Claim 1/2) and “led out” (Claim 3/4) which is unclear and does not appear to be found in the disclosure as originally filed, therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mita et al. (US 6,598,691).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Mita discloses: A vehicle driving apparatus (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), integrating an electric motor (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 5) that is a drive source of a vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, V), a power conversion device (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 12’) that is electrically connected to the electric motor (See, e.g. Fig.1-8) and converts electric power supplied to the electric motor and electric power supplied from the electric motor (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), and a power transmission mechanism (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 7+6) for transmitting rotation of power from the electric motor to a drive wheel side of the vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), wherein an axial direction of a rotating shaft of the electric motor is arranged in a vehicle width direction of the vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), the power conversion device and the power transmission mechanism are respectively arranged on one side and another side of the electric motor in the vehicle width direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-8), the power conversion device is provided with a connector part to which power wiring is connected (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, a1+a2+a3+61+62), and the connector part is arranged such that the power wiring is led out from the power conversion device in the vehicle width direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Mita discloses: wherein the connector part is arranged to such that the power wiring is led out from the power conversion device toward the side of the electric motor in the vehicle width direction (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 3/4] Regarding Claim 3/4, Mita discloses: wherein at least a part of a peripheral edge of the power transmission mechanism is provided with a power wiring space for wiring the power wiring led out from the connector part (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, a1+a2+a3+61+62).
[Claim 5/6] Regarding Claim 5/6, Mita discloses: wherein the power wiring space is a space formed by a chamfered part that is formed by chamfering at least a part of an upper end of the power transmission mechanism (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, a1+a2+a3+61+62).
[Claim 7/8] Regarding Claim 7/8, Mita discloses: wherein the power transmission mechanism comprises a final shaft (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 44+45+40+48) that transmits rotation generated by power of the electric motor to a drive wheel of the vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, W), and the power wiring space is arranged above the final shaft in the power transmission mechanism (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
[Claim 9/10/11/12/13] Regarding Claim 9/10/11/12/13, Mita discloses: wherein the power transmission mechanism integrally comprises a component of a parking mechanism for performing parking lock of the vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8, 52), and the component of the parking mechanism is provided on one side of the power transmission mechanism in a front-rear direction of the vehicle (See, e.g. Fig.1-8).
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and can be found on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DOLAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7757. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J ALLEN SHRIVER can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES M DOLAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights