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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 “wherein at least a part of the speed reducer room is received in the electric motor room in an axial direction of the rotary shaft” (Claim 1 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection) “wherein a power cable connected to the electric motor and/or a fluid pump (Claim 2 – see below 35 USC 112 rejection both combined option not shown) must 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Motor and Speed Reducer Housing with Cooling for an Electric Vehicle.
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 1-3 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: “are different from each other" (line 12) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-3 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: “wherein at least a part of the speed reducer room is received in the electric motor room in an axial direction of the rotary shaft " (line 13-14) which is unclear and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitations: "a space is defined by a part of the electric motor room, the part of the electric motor room overlapping with at least the part of the speed reducer room as viewed in a radial direction of the rotary shaft,” (line 2-4) which is of unclear antecedent basis and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 include limitations linked by the phrase "and/or." This renders the claims indefinite, as it is unclear if the combination of limitations is required or optional. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is 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: “a second electric motor in addition to the electric motor as a first electric motor; and a second speed reducer in addition to the speed reducer as a first speed reducer " (line 2-5) which is unclear 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tominaga (US 11,585,352 B2).
[Claim 1] Regarding Claim 1, Tominaga discloses: A driving apparatus for an electric vehicle (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), the driving apparatus comprising: an electric motor (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 2) including a rotary shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 4) and a rotor (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 2a) that is rotatably supported by the rotary shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11);
a speed reducer (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 3) configured to reduce a speed of rotation of the rotary shaft of the electric motor and to output the rotation of the rotary shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11); and
a housing (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 10) that houses the electric motor and the speed reducer (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), wherein the housing is partitioned by a partition wall (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 14) into an electric motor room in which the electric motor is housed (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 11) and a speed reducer room in which the speed reducer is housed (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 12), wherein a first refrigerant used in the electric motor room (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 24) and a second refrigerant used in the speed reducer room (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 23) are different from each other (See, e.g., Fig.1-11), and wherein at least a part of the speed reducer room is received in the electric motor room in an axial direction of the rotary shaft (See, e.g., Fig.1-11).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tominaga, and further in view of Yu (US 10,511,210 B2).
[Claim 2] Regarding Claim 2, Tominaga discloses wherein a space is defined by a part of the electric motor room (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 24+25), wherein a power cable connected to the electric motor and/or a fluid pump configured to supply the first refrigerant into the electric motor room is provided in the space (See, e.g., Fig.1-11, 24+25)
Tominaga fails to explicitly teach wherein a space is defined by a part of the electric motor room, the part of the electric motor room overlapping with at least the part of the speed reducer room as viewed in a radial direction of the rotary shaft, and wherein a power cable connected to the electric motor and/or a fluid pump configured to supply the first refrigerant into the electric motor room is provided in the space.
However, Yu teaches a similar driving apparatus for an electric vehicle (See, e.g., Yu: Fig.1-6) wherein a space is defined by a part of the electric motor room (See, e.g., Yu: Fig.1-6, 1+2+20), the part of the electric motor room overlapping with at least the part of the speed reducer room as viewed in a radial direction of the rotary shaft (See, e.g., Yu: Fig.1-6, 1+3), and wherein a power cable connected to the electric motor and/or a fluid pump (See, e.g., Yu: Fig.1-6, 9) configured to supply the first refrigerant into the electric motor room is provided in the space (See, e.g., Yu: Fig.1-6, 9).
Yu teaches that it is well known in the art of vehicle design to provide the fluid pump in a space connected to the motor housing. 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 Tominaga modified with the fluid pump in a space connected to the motor housing such as taught by Yu, for the purpose of conveniently allocating weight properly in the vehicle for balancing purposes and also providing the motor as close as possible, beneficially allowing the manufacturer to save money on wiring/piping and associated equipment to connect the two components, and additionally presenting a neat and concise visual appearance when mounted 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
Claim 3 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: a second electric motor in addition to the electric motor as a first electric motor; and a second speed reducer in addition to the speed reducer as a first speed reducer, wherein the first and second electric motors are housed in the electric motor room, and are located in respective positions that are symmetrical to each other with respect to a widthwise center line of the electric motor room, wherein the first and second speed reducers are housed in the speed reducer room, and are located in respective positions that are symmetrical to each other with respect to the widthwise center line, wherein each of the first and second speed reducers includes: an input shaft connected in series to a corresponding one of the first and second electric motors; a counter shaft disposed in parallel to the input shaft; an output shaft disposed perpendicular to the counter shaft, and a pair of reduction gears which are disposed between the counter shaft and the output shaft and which consist of hypoid gears, as claimed in Claim 3 (emphasis added to allowable limitations not suggested or taught by the prior art).
Conclusion
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