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
Claims 1 – 7 have been examined.
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 3 – 5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “weight-optimized” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “weight-optimized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “low-inertia” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-inertia” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 – 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (EP1329352) in view of Heidelberg (EP0249807), both cited by Applicant. In regard to claim 1, Muehlberger discloses a commercial vehicle comprising at least one electric axle, having a transmission- motor unit associated with a wheel assembly (Fig. 1, items 2 and 4), wherein the transmission-motor unit comprises a stator and a rotor (Fig. 1, unnumbered stator and rotor), wherein the rotor is connected in a torque-transmitting manner to the wheel assembly by way of a transmission (Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 2, Muehlberger discloses wherein the transmission is a reduction transmission (paragraph 17).
Muehlberger does not disclose an overhung rotor. In regard to claim 1, Heidelberg discloses a motor comprising a rotor, wherein the rotor is in an overhung position (Fig. 1, item 14 & paragraph 15), and a bearing of the rotor is taken over by the bearing of the transmission (Fig. 1 & paragraph 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the overhung rotors of Heidelberg, to the vehicle of Muehlberger, in order to provide a compact motor-gear unit which is inexpensive to manufacture or install (Heidelberg paragraph 5).
Muehlberger in view of Heidelberg does not disclose dimensions of the rotor. In regard to claim 6, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a rotor sized as recited, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (EP1329352) in view of Heidelberg (EP0249807) as applied to claims 1 – 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Knauff (6,720,702). Muehlberger in view of Heidelberg does not disclose the rotor shape. In regard to claim 3, Knauff discloses wherein a rotor has a weight-optimized form (column 2, lines 30 – 55).
In regard to claim 4, Knauff discloses wherein the rotor has a spoke-like support structure of its lamination stack (Figs. 1 – 6).
In regard to claim 5, Knauff discloses wherein the lamination stack of the rotor and/or the support structure has a low-inertia form, in particular a spoke-like or honeycomb form (column 2, lines 30 – 55 and column 3, lines 56 – 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the vehicle of Muehlberger in view of Heidelberg with the spoke like or honeycomb rotor of Knauff, in order to improve the dynamics of the motor (Knauff column 2, lines 30 – 55).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (EP1329352) in view of Heidelberg (EP0249807) as applied to claims 1 – 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (10,663,051). Muehlberger in view of Heidelberg does not disclose the use of an electric differential. In regard to claim 7, Wang discloses a vehicle including a superordinate controller of an electric drive of the vehicle forms at least one electric differential (Fig. 1).
The addition of these features would result in a predictable variation that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, which has been held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art. Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BAPI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lutz (5,829,542) discloses a motor vehicle having drive assemblies;
Wendl et al. (6,722,459) disclose an axle having a bridge arranged underneath the wheel axle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN DANIEL WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)272-8269. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am - 5 pm (PT).
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN D WALTERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3613