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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The reply filed on 6/24/2026 amended claims 1-10. Claims 1-19 are pending herein, however Claims 11-19 were withdrawn in response to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments not rendered moot by the claim amendments have been addressed below.
On pages 7-10 of the response, regarding Claim 1, Applicant states: “With respect to claim 1, Applicants respectfully submit that Viereck fails to disclose or suggest "a front cross member disposed on a front side of the drive unit," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action maps the claimed front cross member 3 to a cross member Q2 of Viereck. However, as shown in Viereck, the cross member Q2 is disposed on a rear side of drive unit 101 rather than on a front side thereof. Claim 1 expressly requires a front cross member 3 that is disposed on the front side of the drive unit 1 and includes a mounting hole 5 into which a front end of the drive unit is inserted. Viereck does not disclose such an arrangement. Accordingly, the cross member Q2 cannot reasonably correspond to the claimed front cross member. Claim 1 further recites "a mounting bush mounted in the mounting hole and configured to support the front end of the drive unit." The Office Action appears to equate this limitation with a bearing 30 and a bearing seat 130 of Viereck. Applicants respectfully disagree. In Viereck, the bearing 30 is press-fitted into the bearing seat 130 and functions as a bearing assembly for supporting rotational components. By contrast, the claimed mounting bush 7 is mounted in the mounting hole 5 of the front cross member and supports the front end of the drive unit inserted through the mounting hole. Thus, the claimed mounting bush and the bearing 30/bearing seat 130 arrangement of Viereck differ both structurally and functionally. Because Viereck fails to disclose at least (i) a front cross member disposed on a front side of the drive unit and (ii) a mounting bush mounted in a mounting hole of the front cross member and configured to support the front end of the drive unit, Viereck does not disclose or suggest each and every element of claim 1. Accordingly, Viereck does not anticipate claim 1 and any claim that depends from claim 1.”
PNG
media_image1.png
533
733
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding these contentions, the Examiner maintains that the Viereck reference as provided above provides for the disputed claim limitations based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Specifically, while the Viereck reference does not specifically recite that the cited components are a “front cross member” and “mounting bush” it is clear from the disclosure and cited figures that the cited components as annotated above and recited below are assembled in this manner (See, e.g., Viereck: Fig.1-7). One of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily interpret the disputed limitations to be fixed from pivoting as the Applicant argues. Moreover, the element 130 is referred to as a mounting “bush”: “the bearing seats 110, 120, 130 can be of sleeve-shaped configuration, for example, as bearing bushes” (See, e.g., Viereck: Fig.1-7; Col.6, Ln.54-59) 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 pivotable connections of the 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.
On pages 7-10 of the response, regarding Claim 10, Applicant states: “The Office Action appears to rely on elements 63, 33, and 34 of Mitsui as corresponding to the claimed mounting block and on bolts 64 and 65 as corresponding to the claimed mounting bolts. Applicants respectfully disagree. Claim 10 requires mounting bolts that pass through the mounting bush and couple a front end of the mounting block to the mounting bush. In Mitsui, however, the bolts 64 and 65 are not used to secure the identified mounting-block structure to a mounting bush in the claimed manner. Rather, the bolts 64 and 65 perform a different fastening function within a different structural arrangement. Mitsui does not disclose mounting bolts extending through a mounting bush and fastening a front end of a mounting block thereto, as expressly required by claim 10.”
In brief, regarding the Applicant's conclusory statements/arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, all of the references provide for the invention as claimed in Claim 10, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments amount to a mere conclusory statements regarding the prior art and therefore it is unclear what specifically Applicant sees as the differences between the claims and the teachings of the prior art. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant’s contention fails to fairly evaluate the actual level of ordinary skill and knowledge possessed by those skilled in the art. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to recognize that the fastening bolts of Mitsui reference could readily be modified such that they could be incorporated into the drive unit mounting structures of Viereck as provided below. In the recent KSR case, the Supreme Court made two relevant statements that are applicable. First, the Court stated that "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.398, 421 (2007). Secondly, in regards to the same field as that present in the current invention, the Court further noted that those of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle design realized that "[t]he interaction of multiple components means that changing one component often requires the others to be modified as well." KSR, 550 U.S. at 424. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art here would have the required ability and creativity to modify one vehicle drive unit mounting system such that it was capable of being used on another similar vehicle drive unit mounting system. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention A (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not shown that maintaining the inventions in the application would be a burden or how searching would be burdensome (Applicant should take note that “Unity of Invention” and “Special Technical Feature” arguments presented are not relevant under US Restriction practice and instead pertain to PCT Restriction standards).
This is not found persuasive because Applicant has not provided evidence or identified such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants nor clearly admitted on the record that this is the case, the conclusion is made that Applicant considers the inventions to be patentably distinct. Thus, in addition to reading and understanding all of the various features of the inventions presented it would, indeed, be a serious burden upon the examiner to search for the added features and apply any found additional relevant prior art to each of the inventions presented. Furthermore, the examiner disagrees with Applicant's allegation that the search for each invention would be substantially the same. Clearly, in the examiner's view, the inventions carry substantially more features that could be claimed, and which therefore would require being individually searched and individually addressed in the written Office Action, thus prima facie a serious burden.
Consequently, Applicants arguments in traverse notwithstanding, the examiner maintains the restriction requirement to be proper and hereby makes the restriction final.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections that remain are detailed below.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “transverse direction” (Claim 1; See below 35 USC 112 rejection) and “a rear side” (Claim 3; See below 35 USC 112 rejection) and “wherein the alignment protrusion rests on an upper surface of the mounting bush to align the mounting block with the mounting bush” (Claim 9 – Figure 7 is the only figure providing for an alignment protrusion element 23 as indicated in the disclosure but the claimed subject matter is not shown) must all be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 to the claims are withdrawn in light of the amendments, the objections 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 1-10 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, the claim recites the limitation: "a transverse direction”, which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. The previous removed limitation provided that the direction was relative to the vehicle. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-10 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 3, the claim recites the limitation: "toward a rear side”, which is unclear as to what specific element’s rear side this limitation refers, and 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 (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) 1-4, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Viereck et al. (US 11,673,607 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Viereck discloses: A mounting structure for a drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+G+M), comprising:
a front cross member (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, Q2) disposed on a front side of the drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+G+M) and elongated in a transverse direction (See, e.g., Fig.1-7);
a mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 30+130) formed in the front cross member such that a front end of the drive unit is configured to insert into the mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7); and
a mounting bush (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 30+130) mounted in the mounting hole and configured to support the front end of the drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Viereck discloses: wherein both ends of the front cross member are fixed to side members (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, L1+L2) respectively coupled to opposite ends of the front cross member and extending in a longitudinal (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 3] Regarding Claim 3, Viereck discloses: wherein the drive unit has a mounting block (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+G+M+30+31) configured to form the front end of the drive unit (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, tapered from 30+31 back from G through M), and the mounting block has a cross-sectional size that increases from the front end of the drive unit toward a rear side (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
[Claim 4] Regarding Claim 4, Viereck discloses: wherein a rear portion of the mounting block has a cross-sectional size greater than a size of the mounting hole (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, tapered from 30+31 back from G through M at rear side).
[Claim 9] Regarding Claim 9, Viereck discloses: wherein the mounting block comprises an alignment protrusion (See, e.g., Fig.1-7, 101+G+30+31) protruding forward from the front end, and wherein the alignment protrusion rests on an upper surface of the mounting bush to align the mounting block with the mounting bush (See, e.g., Fig.1-7).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viereck and further in view of Mitsui et al. (US 7,393,016 B2).
[Claim 10] Regarding Claim 10, Viereck fails to explicitly teach: wherein the front end of the mounting block of the drive unit is coupled to the mounting bush by a fastening bolt fastened through the mounting bush mounted on the front cross member.
However, Mitsui teaches a similar vehicle drive unit mounting structure (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12) wherein a mounting block (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 63+33+34+etc.) of the drive unit (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 15) is coupled to a mounting bush (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, 63+33+34+etc.) by a fastening bolt (See, e.g., Mitsui: Fig.1-12, unlabeled+64+65+etc.).
Mitsui teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicles to provide the drive unit mounted via a fastening bolt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the system taught by Viereck modified with a fastening bolt such as taught by Mitsui, for the purpose of conveniently maintaining the drive unit in a mounted configuration when in use, beneficially allowing a user to dismount the drive unit easily for service/replacement (e.g., by unfastening the bolt), and additionally presenting a neat and concise visual appearance when stored on the vehicle. Moreover, the modification is obvious as no more than the use of familiar elements according to known methods in a manner that achieves predictable results. (See, e.g., KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record when taken alone or in combination with another does not teach or fairly suggest at this time at least, among other limitations: wherein the front cross member comprises multiple local reduced-strength portions are provided adjacent to the mounting hole, as claimed in Claim 5 and similarly provided in Claim 7: wherein multiple mounting pipes are provided around the mounting hole of the front cross member and extend in a longitudinal direction through the front cross member (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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