fhyDETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 07/30/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 2-3, 6 and 9 have been amended, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In light of amendments, all the rejections under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see (‘Remarks’ filed 07/30/2026, pages 5-21) and in view of argument, the applicant contends that the rejection made for claims 1-10 under 35 USC § 103 are deficient and that the claimed features are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to make up for addressing the deficiency of claim 1-10 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive for this reason:
The subject matter of claim 1 is rendered obvious by the combination of Alcantar in view of Versteyhe because Alcantar in view of Versteyhe fully discloses the underlying multi-axle drive architecture – including an electric drive machine mechanically driving a primary axle, a hydraulic pump coupled to the rotor shaft, a hydraulic motor arranged on a secondary axle, and hydraulic interconnection between the pump and motor – while Alcantar in view of Versteyhe and further in view of Mastroianni teaches the missing control functionality required to automatically detect operating conditions and switch system modes based on those detected states. Under MPEP §2141.01(a), the modified Alcantar is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the applicant because the claimed invention requires automatic mode switching based on the vehicle driving state, and the modified Alcantar in view of Mastroianni provides a well-known control framework for condition-based switching applicable across technological field. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the mechanical/hydraulic driven train of Alcantar in view of Versteyhe with the automatic control logic of Mastroianni to achieve a predictable improvements in system operation, consistent with KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), which hold that combining familiar elements according to known methods is obvious when the combination yields no more than predictable results. The references (such as Alcantar, Versteyhe, Samorodov and Mastroianni etc.,) do not need to be from the same field of endeavor, as established in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981). Applying Versteyhe, Samorodov and Mastroianni’s known elements etc, including automatic mode-switching logic to Alcantar’s multi axle system would have been a routing design variation for a person of ordinary skill with a reasonable expectation of success, consistent with MPEP §2143.02. Because Alcantar in view of Versteyhe already teaches the structural features recited in independent and dependent claims including hydraulic pump clutch, hydraulic motor clutch, axial piston machines, differential spur gear rings, and specific meshing arrangements and Versteyhe, Samorodov. Mastroianni’s limitations to provide linear actuators, hydraulic actuators, the control logic, motor output shaft, including connection architect between hydraulic motor clutch mechanically directly or indirectly on one side to the motor output shaft and on the other side to the secondary axle drive element as required by all the dependent claims.
For these reasons, the limitations of claims 1-10 do not distinguish from the current art of record e.g., over Alcantar in view of Versteyhe or Samorodov or Mastroianni.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are rendered obvious and pending in the application. See claim rejection under 35 U.S.C §103 below.
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 no obviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcantar et al. (US Pub. 20210155219 A1; hereinafter, “Alcanter) in view of Versteyhe (US Pub. 20150354685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alcanter discloses: a multi-axle drive unit (primary and secondary axle; ‘Abstract’; figs. 1-4B) for a motor vehicle (“vehicle”; ‘Abstract’), comprising:
an electric drive machine (‘primary actuator”; 26; [0011]);
a primary drive axle (“primary axle”; [0003]) having a primary axle drive element (“differential” 30; [0012]) that is couplable to a rotor shaft of the electric drive machine (26) mechanically directly or indirectly to thereby transmit torque [ para. 0012 teaches: “the differential 30 routes torque produced by the motor 26 to the driven wheels 32 via half shafts 34; see fig. 1];
Alcanter teaches a secondary axle drive element (“differential 40; fig. 1; [0013]) of the secondary drive axle (24) couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to thereby transmit torque [ para. 0013 teaches: “secondary axle 24 also includes a differential 40. The differential 40 includes a carrier 42 driveably connected to the secondary actuator 28 via gearing 44”; thus, couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to thereby transmit torque], but Alcanter’s vehicle appeared to be an electric vehicle; thus, explicitly silent on a hydraulic device having a hydraulic pump with a pump drive shaft which is couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to the rotor shaft; a secondary drive axle on which a hydraulic motor of the hydraulic device is arranged, the hydraulic motor having a motor output shaft that is couplable to a secondary axle drive element of the secondary drive axle couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to thereby transmit torque, the hydraulic pump and the hydraulic motor being connected hydraulically to one another; however,
Versteyhe in another ‘hydrostatic and direct drive transmission’ similar to Alcanter teaches:
a hydraulic device having a hydraulic pump (“hydrostatic pump” 106; [0007]) with a pump drive shaft which is couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to the rotor shaft [para. 0010 teaches that the hydrostatic pump is in driving engagement with the transmission portion; thus, couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to the rotor shaft];
a secondary drive axle (120) on which a hydraulic motor (112; [0007]) of the hydraulic device (“hydraulic pump and hydraulic motor”; [0006]) is arranged, the hydraulic motor (112) having a motor output shaft (motor shaft) that is couplable (via “driving engagement with first drive shaft 116”; [0007]) to a secondary axle drive element of the secondary drive axle (120) couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to thereby transmit torque [ para. 0007 teaches that the hydrostatic motor 112 is in driving engagement with a transfer case 114, which is in driving engagement with a first drive shaft 116 and a second drive shaft 118. The first drive shaft 116 is in driving engagement with a first axle 120 and the second drive shaft 116 is in driving engagement with a second axle 122], the hydraulic pump and the hydraulic motor being connected hydraulically to one another [para. 0007 teaches: “The hydrostatic pump 106 is in fluid communication with a hydrostatic motor 112”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electric vehicle of Alcanter and to incorporate the teaching of Versteyhe, such that hydraulic device having a hydraulic pump provided with a pump drive shaft couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to the rotor shaft and also, a secondary drive axle on which a hydraulic motor of the hydraulic device is arranged and the hydraulic motor having a motor output shaft that is couplable to a secondary axle drive element of the secondary drive axle couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to transmit torque as taught by Versteyhe into the invention of Alcanter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously make an enhanced vehicle with dual electric and hybrid functionality where the rear axle pump converts kinetic energy (when braking and coasting) into hydraulic pressure instead of wasting it as a heat and later, the front axle motor uses the pressure to drive the vehicle. A skilled artisan would have recognized that adding such a known dual driving mode constitutes a simple design choice yielding only predictable results. The motivation to combine the teaching of Versteyhe into the invention of Alcanter arises from the shared objective of enabling hybrid dynamic driving environments. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results and reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of hybrid terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 2, Alcanter as modified above teaches the clutch 54 and 60, but does not appear to explicitly teach that a hydraulic pump clutch which is connected mechanically directly or indirectly on one side to the pump drive shaft and on the other side to the rotor shaft and remaining limitation of claim 2; however,
Versteyhe teaches that a hydraulic pump clutch (‘243”; [0030]) which is connected mechanically directly or indirectly on one side to the pump drive shaft (246) and on the other side to the rotor shaft (218), to thereby allow the hydraulic pump clutch to be adjusted between a connected position (figs. 1-3), in which the rotor shaft (218) and the pump drive shaft (246) are connected mechanically directly or indirectly to one another to thereby transmit torque, and a disconnected position, in which the rotor shaft and the pump drive shaft are freely rotatable with respect to one another [para. 0032 teaches that when the transfer case clutch 243 is placed in a disengaged position, the transfer case 214 is drivingly disengaged (“free rotatable”) from the inter-axle drive shaft 218; thus, pump drive shaft (246) is connected mechanically directly or indirectly to one another to thereby transmit torque, and a disconnected position, in which the rotor shaft and the pump drive shaft are freely rotatable with respect to one another.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electric vehicle of Alcanter to incorporate the teaching of Versteyhe, such that pump and clutch system adjustment will allow drive system to transmit torque, and when in a disconnected position, the rotor shaft and the pump drive shaft can be freely rotatable with respect to one another as taught by Versteyhe into the invention of Alcanter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously make the enhanced vehicle clutch drive ability where one of reducing and interrupting a rotational force can be transferred from the power source to the primary transmission portion [0019 of Versteyhe]. A skilled artisan would have recognized that adding such a known clutch element constitutes a simple design choice yielding only predictable results. The motivation to combine the teaching of Versteyhe into the invention of Alcanter arises from the shared objective of enabling hybrid dynamic driving environments. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results and reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of hybrid terrain adaptability.
Regarding claim 4, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that the multi-axle drive unit according to claim 1, wherein the hydraulic pump (206) and/or the hydraulic motor are/is configured as a respective axial piston machine [para. 0023 of Alcanter teaches: the hydrostatic pump 206 is a hydraulic axial piston pump having a movable swashplate”].
Regarding claim 5, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that the primary axle drive element and/or the secondary axle drive element (30 and 40) are/is configured as a respective differential drive spur gear ring of an axle differential [para. 0013 teaches “opposing spider gear”; note that a spider gear is usually a type of spur gear.]
Regarding claim 6, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that the differential drive spur gear (46, 48; [0013]) ring of the primary drive axle (30) meshes firstly directly or indirectly with a rotor pinion (fig. 1 and [0013]) which is seated fixedly on the rotor shaft (shaft of 26). Alcanter is silent on to thereby conjointly rotate, and meshes secondly directly or indirectly with a pump drive pin-ion which is seated fixedly on the pump drive shaft to thereby conjointly rotate; however,
Versteyhe teaches that thereby conjointly rotate and meshes secondly directly or indirectly with a pump drive pin-ion (224) which is seated fixedly on the pump drive shaft (shaft of pump 206) to thereby conjointly rotate [para. 0021 teaches that the primary take off gear 224 is a helical spur gear in driving engagement with the hydrostatic pump 206; however, it is understood that the primary take off gear 224 may be another type of gear. The primary take off gear 224 is rotatably supported within the housing 228 with a plurality of bearings; thus, rotate, and meshes secondly directly or indirectly with a pump drive pin-ion which is seated fixedly on the pump drive shaft]. Note that: the rotor shaft and the pump drive shaft are couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to one another and without involvement of the primary axle drive element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Alcanter to incorporate the teaching of Versteyhe and configure the differential drive spur gear ring to mesh secondly directly or indirectly with a pump drive pinion fixedly seated on the pump drive shaft so as to conjointly rotate, and meshes secondly directly or indirectly with a pump drive pin-ion which is seated fixedly on the pump drive shaft. Such a modification represents a predictable use of known gear-meshing and shaft-mounting techniques to achieve a predictable result of transmitting torque from a differential drive spur gear ring to the pump drive shaft.
Regarding claim 7, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that the rotor shaft (drive shaft of Versteyhs) and the pump drive shaft (pump shaft of Versteyhs) are couplable mechanically directly or indirectly to one another (see claim rejection 1 above) and without involvement of the primary axle drive element (see fig. 1 of Alcanter and ‘Abstract’].
Regarding claim 8, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that the differential drive spur gear ring (fig. 1) of the secondary drive axle (24) meshes directly or indirectly with a motor output pinion (48; [0013]) which is seated fixedly on the motor output shaft (28) to thereby conjointly rotate (see fig. 4A for conjointly rotate).
Regarding claim 9, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that a passenger motor vehicle (fig. 1), with the multi-axle drive unit (“primary” and “secondary” axles; [‘abstract’]) which is configured according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcantar in view of Versteyhe and further in view of Samorodov (UA 86624 U).
Regarding claim 3, Alcanter as modified above teaches that hydraulic pump clutch (‘243”; [0030] of Versteyhe), in such that a disconnected position, in which the motor output shaft and the secondary axle drive element are freely rotatable with respect to one another, but fails to explicitly teach that a hydraulic motor clutch which is connected mechanically directly or indirectly on one side to the motor output shaft and on the other side to the secondary axle drive element and the remaining limitation as required by claim 3; however,
Samorodov in another ‘hydrostatic mechanical transmission of a vehicle’ similar to the modified Alcanter teaches that a hydraulic motor clutch (“hydromotor friction clutch”, ‘Abstract’) which is connected mechanically directly or indirectly on one side to the motor output shaft (“drive shaft” of the motor; ‘Abstract’) and on the other side to the secondary axle drive element, to thereby allow the hydraulic pump clutch (“friction clutch”, page 2; it should be noted that a friction clutch is actuated by a hydraulic pump- essentially a hydraulic clutch system. This system uses hydraulic pressure to engage or disengage a friction-type clutch) to be adjusted between a connected position (fig. 1), in which the motor output shaft (drive shaft of the motor) and the secondary axle drive element are connected (via planetary gear mechanism, see claims, pages 4-5) mechanically directly or indirectly to one another to thereby transmit torque [claims, pages 5-6 teaches that he coupling is connected to the drive shaft of the hydraulic pump, the drive shaft of the hydraulic motor through friction clutch and gear transmission connected to the carrier planetary mechanism; thus, the motor output shaft and the secondary axle drive element are connected mechanically directly or indirectly to one another to thereby transmit torque, and a disconnected position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an electric vehicle of Alcanter to incorporate the teaching of Samorodov, such that hydraulic pump clutch is connected mechanically directly or indirectly to one side to the motor output shaft and on the other side to the secondary axle drive element, to thereby allow the hydraulic pump clutch to be adjusted between a connected position, in which the motor output shaft and the secondary axle drive element are connected mechanically directly or indirectly to transmit torque as taught by Samorodov into the invention of the modified Alcanter with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously make the enhanced vehicle clutch drive ability in which the output shaft of the motor get engaged with the output shaft of the pump and deliver faster energy capture/release than the batteries with very high torque at low speeds. A skilled artisan would have recognized that constituting such a drive system constitutes a simple design choice yielding only predictable results. The motivation to combine the teaching of Samorodov into the invention of the modified Alcanter arises from the shared objective of enabling efficient hybrid dynamic driving environments. The claimed configuration doesn’t yield unexpected results and reflects routing engineering design choices based on known principles of hybrid drive system and terrain adaptability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alcantar in view of Versteyhe and further in view of Mastroianni et al. (US Pub. 20220258604 A1; hereinafter, “Mastroianni”).
Regarding claim 10, Alcanter as modified above further teaches that a method for operating a motor vehicle ( see ‘Title’) configured according to claim 9, wherein a driving state of the motor vehicle is detected via a control (“controller”; [0003]) and sensor unit (speed sensor 76; [0017]) of the motor vehicle and, based on the detected driving state (“mode req.”; fig. 4B), the multi-axle drive unit (fig. 1), but Alcanter appeared to be silent on being switched automatically, into an operating mode, in which the secondary drive axle is driven via the hydraulic device up to a predefined driving speed of the motor vehicle which is 50 km/h; however,
Mastroianni in another ‘systems and methods for disconnecting tandem axles’ similar to the modified Alcanter teaches that based on the detected driving state (“requested mode; ‘Abstract’), the multi-axle drive unit (“multi axle assembly”; ‘Abstract’), being switched automatically (“to coasting condition”, into an operating mode, in which the secondary drive axle is driven via the hydraulic device [para. 0034 teaches that in some embodiments, the one or more actuators 348 are electrical actuators, linear actuators, pneumatic actuators, hydraulic actuators, electromechanical actuators, and/or electromagnetic actuators. For example, the one or more actuators 348 may engage the clutch member 346 with the drive gear 380, thereby locking the one or more hubs 344 to the tandem axle half shaft 324 in response to a first control signal from the controller], up to a predefined driving speed of the motor vehicle which is 50 km/h [para. 0038 teaches that the vehicle may reach a cruising speed (e.g., 50 miles/hour or greater) while traveling along a highway or may navigate a downhill slope.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatic mode switching control of Mastroianni with the speed-dependent hydraulic secondary axle of the modified Alcanter in order to optimize traction at low speeds and efficiency at higher speeds. Selecting the specific threshold speed, such as 50km/h. represents nothing more than routine calibration and design choice based on the desired vehicle performance characteristics. Therefore, it would have been obvious to configure the vehicle to automatically switch the multi-axle drive unit into an operating mode in which the secondary drive axle is driven via the hydraulic device up to a predetermined driving speed, including a speed of 50km/h, as required by claim 10 limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170120739 A1 to Wagner teaches: a utility vehicle, in particular a motor truck or motor bus, is provided having at least one double-axle unit. The double-axle unit has a driven first axle and a driven second axle, wherein the first axle can be driven by way of a mechanical drivetrain and the second driven axle can be driven by at least one hydraulic motor of a hydrostatic drive.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on 571-272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
September 24, 2026
