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 Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/24/2026 with respect to claims 7-10, and 12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9-11) that Feuchtner’s transmission 4 is aligned with the axis of wheel 2 and performs the function of an angular gear (para. 0028, Fuechtner) and therefore cannot be said to be spaced from the wheel along the third axis. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 7 does not recite any specific non negligible magnitude of spacing nor does it tie the spacing to any structural or functional distinction over the prior art. Fuechtner expressly discloses the transmission (4) as “interposed between” the output shaft (6) and the wheel (2), meaning the transmission necessarily occupies a physical position along the shaft path intermediate the motor and the wheel, therefore possesses some separation from the wheel along the shaft axis by virtue of its own physical dimension and its interposed location. That the transmission additionally performs an angular redirection function does not negate that it is offset from the wheel along the third axis prior to that redirection; the claim as written does not exclude a transmission that also changes shaft orientation. Absent evidence that the claimed spacing is critical the specific distance is considered a matter of routing engineering choice and obvious optimization (see In re Aller, 220 F2.d 454 (CCPA 1955) (discovering optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not ordinarily an aspect of invention. Accordingly, Fuechtner, in view of Ruppert continues to teach claim 7 and the rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/24/2026 with respect to claims 1, 3-6, 11-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
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 7, 9-10, 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 is configured to 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 is configured to 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);
a first transmission assembly (4) interposed between said first output shaft (6) and said first wheel (2) and positioned a distance from the first wheel as measured along the third axis (Fuechtner teaches the first transmission assembly (4) is positioned a distance from the first wheel as measured along the third axis (the transmission assembly is interposed between the first wheel and the output shaft and therefore the first transmission assembly is positioned a distance from the first wheel along the third axis in the very nature that it is separate from the first wheel); 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 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 further comprising a second electric motor (3) operatively connected to the second wheel (2) (motor and wheel on the left side of the vehicle); and
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) are configured to 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, 13-15 are allowed.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art alone or in combination fails to teach or disclose, wherein the casing has a rear section and a front section, the front section being positioned toward the first and second wheels relative to the rear section, wherein the first and second motors are positioned in the rear section of the casing and the first and second transmission assemblies are positioned toward the front section of the casing relative to the first and second motors as is recited in claims 1, 11, and 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights