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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2023 202 325.3 filed on (3/15/23).
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on (3/11/24) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perlo US 9649923).
[CLAIM 1] Regarding claim 1, Perlo discloses a drive arrangement for a motor vehicle (100), the drive arrangement comprising: a first drive axle device (Perlo, FIG 1) configured for driving with a first axle ratio, the first drive axle device comprising a first drive module (Perlo, FIG 1) with a first electric drive machine (motors 40); and a second drive axle device (Perlo, FIG 1) configured for driving with a second axle ratio (Column 2, Lines 20-25 discloses gear ratios of the combined differential transmission) second drive axle device comprising a second drive module with a second electric drive machine (motors 40).
PNG
media_image1.png
690
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[CLAIM 2] Regarding claim 2, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first drive module comprises a first transmission system (55) with a plurality of shiftable gear ratio levels (Column 2, Lines 20-25 discloses gear ratios) and the second drive module comprises a second transmission system (55) with a plurality of shiftable gear ratio levels (Column 2, Lines 20-25 discloses gear ratios and inherently shift).
[CLAIM 3] Regarding claim 3, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first drive module is identical to the second drive module (Perlo, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 4] Regarding claim 4, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 1, wherein each of the first drive axle device and the second drive axle device has a standardized drive module interface (Perlo, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 5] Regarding claim 5, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 4, wherein each of the first drive module and the second drive module has an interface that is compatible with a respective drive module interface (Perlo, FIG 1).
[CLAIM 6] Regarding claim 6, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the first drive axle device comprises first end transmissions (differential transmission 55 has ends).
[CLAIM 7] Regarding claim 7, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 6, the first drive axle device has a standardized end transmission (differential transmission 55 has ends) interface.
[CLAIM 8] Regarding claim 8, Perlo discloses the drive arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the first end transmissions has an interface that is compatible with the end transmission interface (The differential transmission ends inherently interface via gearing and a center shaft to transmit power).
[CLAIM 10] Regarding claim 10, Perlo discloses a motor vehicle comprising the drive arrangement according to claim 1 (Perlo, FIG 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perlo US 9649923) in view of Minegishi (US PG PUB 2002/0111243).
[CLAIM 9] Regarding claim 9, drive arrangement according to claim 6.
-However, it fails to disclose wherein the first end transmission is adapted as external planetary gears.
-Nevertheless, Minegishi discloses in para [0011] external planetary gears 15a-15b.
-Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Perlo as taught by Minegishi with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide additional transmission speeds and shifting
PNG
media_image2.png
694
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 whose telephone number is (571)270-3411. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM PST.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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 J TRIGGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3614B
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614