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 .
Claim Objections
Examiner notes the use of “can” in claims 1, 4, 7 and 12, this is functional language which implies that the apparatus is capable of performing a certain function but it does not necessarily mean that it is required to perform that function. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "capable of" or “can” performing a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 138. Examiner suggests replacing this language with “configured to”.
Claim 2 recites “characterized in that it comprises” in line 1, this is unclear what “it” or “its” is exactly referring to, examiner suggests replacing with what it is referring to.
Claim 8 recites “characterized in that it comprises” in line 1, this is unclear what “it” or “its” is exactly refereeing to, examiner suggests replacing with what it is referring to.
Claim 10 recites “in that it comprises” in line 2, this is unclear what “it” or “its” is exactly refereeing to, examiner suggests replacing with what it is referring to.
Claim 13 recites “characterized in that it comprises” in line 1, this is unclear what “it” or “its” is exactly refereeing to, examiner suggests replacing with what it is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1-6, and 11-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said first transmission assembly" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said first transmission assembly" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuechtner (US 20110259657), and further in view of Gloceri (US 20100025131) and Bologna (US 6513401).
In regards to claim 1, Fuechtner discloses an electric axle (see annotated figure 2.1 below of axle 1) for a motor vehicle (passenger car), comprising: a first wheel (2), which can rotate around a first axis (aligned with 5); a second wheel (2), which can rotate around a second axis (aligned with shaft 5); and at least one first electric motor (3), which is operatively connected to said first and second wheel (wheels 2); said first electric motor (3) comprising, in turn, a first output shaft (6), which can rotate around a third axis (aligned with the shaft 6) orthogonal to said first and second axis (aligned with 5); said first electric motor (3) being operatively connected to said first wheel (2) and comprising a second electric motor (3) operatively connected to said second wheel (2); said second electric motor (3) comprising, in turn, a second output shaft (6), which can rotate around a fourth axis (aligned with shaft 6) orthogonal to said first and second axis (aligned with shafts 5) and parallel to said third axis (aligned with shaft 6); characterized in that said first transmission assembly (4) is interposed between said first output shaft (6) and said first wheel (2); said axle (1) further comprising: a second transmission assembly (4) interposed between said second output shaft (6) and said second wheel (2).
However, Fuechtner fails to teach wherein the motor vehicle comprises a casing accommodating said first electric motor, said second electric motor, said first transmission assembly and said second transmission assembly; said casing having a second length parallel to said third axis and a second width orthogonal to said third axis; said second length being greater than said second width.
Gloceri teaches an electric axle for a vehicle see fig. 1 and 2, similar to that of Fuechtner, having a casing (102) accommodating said first electric motor (M1), said second transmission assembly (M2), said first transmission assembly (G1), said second transmission assembly (G2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner in view of Gloceri providing the electric axle arrangement with a casing/housing so as to house and support drivetrain components including the electric motors and transmission assemblies in a manner known in the art for electric drive axle transmission units while also protect the internal components. In combination the casing, as taught by Gloceri, having a second length (the width of the casing 102) parallel to said third axis (aligned with shaft 6) and second width (the length of the casing 102) orthogonal to said third axis (aligned with shaft 6, see annotated fig herein); said second length greater than said second width (the motor and transmission elongated further than the length of the axle).
Fuechtner and Gloceri fails to teach wherein said casing consisting of a pair of half shells. However, Bologna teaches a transmission unit for axles for vehicles with electric drive gear wherein the unit is housed in a casing, similar to Gloceri that consists of half-shells (20,22), see fig.1, claim 1, and Col. 1 lines 33-46. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner and Gloceri, in view of Bologna. Both Gloceri and Bologna teach casings for axle assembly components, the casing consisting of two half shells as Bologna teaches, would have been a simple substitution of known equivalents for supporting the motors and transmissions.
In regards to claim 2, Fuechtner, Gloceri, and Bologna in combination teach it comprises at least one first transmission assembly (4) interposed between said first electric motor (3) and said first and second wheel (wheels 2, see fig.1).
In regards to claim 3, Fuechtner, Gloceri, and Bologna in combination said first electric motor (3) and said first transmission assembly (4) have a first length (length of 4, shaft 6 and motor 3 extending in the vehicle length direction) parallel to said third axis (along shaft 6) and a first width (in the vehicle width direction) orthogonal to said third axis (axis 6); said first length being greater than said first width (elongated in the vehicles length direction more than in the width, see fig. 1). Examiner notes, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to adjust the lengths and widths since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regards to claim 4, Fuechtner in combination with Gloceri and Bologna teaches said first (3) and second electric motor (3)(see annotated figure) can be operated independently of one another (each motor functions to drive a respective assigned wheel through a respective transmission, thereby independently controllable or operable relative to one another).
In regards to claim 5, Fuechtner in combination with Gloceri and Bologna teaches motor vehicle (passenger car) comprising: a body (chassis of passenger car para. 0052) defining a front (front axle 1 at front of vehicle) and a rear (rear axle para. 0007, internal combustion engine may be at the rear of the vehicle, see para. 0019), with reference to a normal forward driving direction of the motor vehicle (normal forward driving direction of the motor vehicle is from right to left in the figures); a fourth longitudinal axis (aligned with shaft 6) , which is parallel to said normal forward moving direction of the motor vehicle and is horizontal in a normal driving condition of the motor vehicle (see the shaft 6 extending from front to rear in a normal forward moving direction of the motor vehicle and is horizontal in a normal driving condition of the vehicle, fig. 2.1); and an axle (1) according to claim 1 (see above); said front and rear (where the front and rear axles are respectively) being arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to said fourth axis (along the shaft 6); characterized in that said first electric motor extends (3) from the side of said front (front axle 1, see fig. 2.1) relative to said first (aligned with 5) and second axis (aligned with the other 5, on the other side), moving along said fourth axis (along the shaft 6)(see para. 0014-16).
In regards to claim 13, Fuechtner, Gloceri, and Bologna in combination teaches, with reference to said normal forward driving direction (normal forward driving direction of the motor vehicle is from right to left in the figures): a front axle (1); and said rear axle (Fuechtner teaches the vehicle has a front and rear axles).
In regards to claim 14, Fuechtner in combination with Gloceri and Bologna teach the vehicle characterized in that it is a hybrid or electric vehicle (see abstract a hybrid vehicle or a vehicle driven exclusively by electric machine).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuechtner (US 20110259657) ,Gloceri (US 20100025131) and Bologna (US 6513401) as applied above, and further in view of Ruppert (US 7083015).
In regards to claim 6, Fuechtner as combined fails to teach said third axis is inclined relative to said fourth axis, preferably at an angle ranging from 3 to 7 degrees. However, Ruppert teaches an axle assembly for an electric vehicle similar to Fuechtner, wherein a first vehicle motor (36) and the motor axis of rotation (38) is mounted at an angle (see col.2 lines 47-50, and Col. 4 lines 6-9). Although Ruppert fails to disclose an angle ranging from 3 to 7, absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to set the range of the angle from 3 to 7 in order to allow for flexible packaging designs for other vehicle components ( see col. 1 lines 39-42) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner in view of Ruppert with a reasonable expectation of success, mounting the motor at an angle where the third axis which defines the motors rotation is inclined relative to said fourth axis (the other motors axis) for the benefits of flexible packaging designs for other vehicle components.
Claims 7-10, and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuechtner (US 20110259657) and further in view of Ruppert (US 7083015).
In regards to claim 7, Fuechtner discloses a motor vehicle (passenger car) comprising: a body (chassis of passenger car para. 0052) defining a front (front axle 1 at front of vehicle) and a rear (rear axle para. 0007, internal combustion engine may be at the rear of the vehicle, see para. 0019), with reference to a normal forward driving direction of the motor vehicle (normal forward driving direction of the motor vehicle is from right to left in the figures); an electric axle (axle 1, fig. 2.1 annotated above, for an electric vehicle); said electric axle (1) comprising, in turn: a first wheel (wheel 2 on the "right" side of the vehicle), which can rotate around a first axis (5 on the "right" side of the vehicle); a second wheel (wheel 2 on the "left" side of the vehicle), which can rotate around a second axis (5 on the "left" side of the vehicle); and at least one first electric motor (3 on the "right" side of the vehicle), which is operatively connected to said first and second wheel (left and right wheels 2); said first electric motor (3 on the "right" side of the vehicle) comprising, in turn, a first output shaft (6 on the "right" side of the vehicle), which can rotate around a third axis (aligned with the shaft 6) orthogonal to said first and second axis (aligned with shaft 5); and a fourth longitudinal axis (aligned with shaft 7) , which is parallel to said normal forward moving direction of the motor vehicle and is horizontal in a normal driving condition of the motor vehicle (see the shaft 7 extending from front to rear in a normal forward moving direction of the motor vehicle and is horizontal in a normal driving condition of the vehicle, fig. 2.1); said front and rear (where the front and rear axles 1 are respectively in a right to left direction) being arranged one after the other in a direction parallel to said fourth axis (along the shaft 7); said first electric motor extends (3 on the "right" side) from the side of said front (front axle 1, see fig. 2.1) relative to said first (aligned with 5) and second axis (aligned with the other 5, on the other side), moving along said fourth axis (along the shaft 7)(see para. 0014-16).
Fuechtner fails to teach said third axis is inclined relative to said fourth axis, preferably at an angle ranging from 3 to 7 degrees. However, Ruppert teaches an axle assembly for an electric vehicle similar to Fuechtner, wherein a first vehicle motor (36) and the motor axis of rotation (38) is mounted at an angle (see col.2 lines 47-50, and Col. 4 lines 6-9). Although Ruppert fails to disclose an angle ranging from 3 to 7, absent evidence of criticality, it would have been obvious to set the range of the angle from 3 to 7 in order to allow for flexible packaging designs for other vehicle components (see col. 1 lines 39-42) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner in view of Ruppert with a reasonable expectation of success, mounting the motor at an angle where the third axis which defines the motors rotation is inclined relative to said fourth axis (the other motors axis) for the benefits of flexible packaging designs for other vehicle components.
In regards to claim 8, Fuechtner and Ruppert in combination teach it comprises at least one first transmission assembly (4 on the "right" side of the vehicle) interposed between said first electric motor (3 on the "right" side of the vehicle) and said first and second wheel (wheels 2, see fig.1).
In regards to claim 9, Fuechtner and Ruppert said first electric motor (3 on the "right" side of the vehicle) and said first transmission assembly (4 on the "right" side of the vehicle) have a first length (length of 4, shaft 6 and motor 3 extending in the vehicle length direction) parallel to said third axis (along shaft 6 on the right side of vehicle) and a first width (in the vehicle width direction) orthogonal to said third axis (along shaft 6 on the right side of vehicle); said first length being greater than said first width (elongated in the vehicles length direction more than in the width, see fig. 1). Examiner notes, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to adjust the lengths and widths since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In regards to claim 10, Fuechtner and Ruppert said first electric motor (3 on the right side of the vehicle) is operatively connected to said first wheel (2 on the right side), and in that it comprises a second electric motor (3 on the left side of the vehicle) operatively connected to said second wheel (2 on the left side); said second electric motor (3 on the left side of the vehicle) comprising, in turn, a second output shaft (6 on the left side of vehicle), which can rotate around a fourth axis (along shaft 6 on the left side of vehicle) orthogonal to said first and second axis (along shaft 5) and parallel to said third axis (along shaft 6 on the right side of vehicle).
In regards to claim 12, Fuechtner in combination with Ruppert teaches said first (3) and second electric motor (3)(see annotated figure) can be operated independently of one another (each motor functions to drive a respective assigned wheel through a respective transmission, thereby independently controllable or operable relative to one another).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuechtner (US 20110259657), Ruppert (US 7083015) as applied above, and further in view of Gloceri (US 20100025131) and Bologna (US 6513401).
In regards to claim 11, Fuechtner and Ruppert said first transmission assembly (4 on the right side of the vehicle) is interposed between said first output shaft (6 on the right side of vehicle) and said first wheel (2 on the right side of vehicle); said axle (1 see fig. 2.1) further comprising: a second transmission assembly (4 on the left side of vehicle) interposed between said second output shaft (6 on the left side of vehicle) and said second wheel (2 on the left side of vehicle). However, Fuechtner fails to teach a casing accommodating said first electric motor, said second electric motor, said first transmission assembly and said second transmission assembly; said casing having a second length parallel to said third axis and a second width orthogonal to said third axis; said second length being greater than said second width.
Gloceri teaches an electric axle for a vehicle see fig. 1 and 2, similar to that of Fuechtner, having a casing (102) accommodating said first electric motor (M1), said second transmission assembly (M2), said first transmission assembly (G1), said second transmission assembly (G2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner in view of Gloceri providing the electric axle arrangement with a casing/housing so as to house and support drivetrain components including the electric motors and transmission assemblies in a manner known in the art for electric drive axle transmission units while also protect the internal components. In combination the casing, as taught by Gloceri, having a second length (the width of the casing 102) parallel to said third axis (aligned with Fuechtner shaft 6) and second width (the length of the casing 102) orthogonal to said third axis (aligned with shaft 6, see annotated fig. above); said second length greater than said second width (the motor and transmission elongated further than the length of the axle).
Fuechtner and Gloceri fails to teach wherein said casing consisting of a pair of half shells. However, Bologna teaches a transmission unit for axles for vehicles with electric drive gear wherein the unit is housed in a casing, similar to Gloceri that consists of half-shells (20,22), see fig.1, claim 1, and Col. 1 lines 33-46. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Fuechtner and Gloceri, in view of Bologna with a reasonable expectation of success. Both Gloceri and Bologna teach casings for axle assembly components, the casing consisting of two half shells as Bologna teaches, would have been a simple substitution of known equivalents for supporting the motors and transmissions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a list of relevant prior art that teach relevant axle assemblies for hybrid or electric vehicles relevant to that claimed in the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN ANNE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4356. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-5:00pm (est).
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 at (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 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.
/C.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614