DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “first axial retention means” (Claim 1) is interpreted under 112(f) as using the term “means”, modified by the function of mounting and is not further modified by structure.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second rolling bearing is mounted with clearance” (Claim 10) and “the intermediate shaft is positioned in the same radial footprint as that of the electric machine” (Claims 13 and 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Regarding Claim 10, no clearance appears to be shown in the drawings.
Regarding Claims 13 and 18, the outer curved portions of shaft 5 appear to be outside of the radial footprint of 2/’d’ (i.e. not having the same radial footprint).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017/145812.
Regarding Claim 1, ‘812 discloses
an electric machine (31),
a casing comprising a first shell (38) and a second shell (34/35/37/39), the second shell being situated between the electric machine and the first shell,
a main shaft (51) which is housed in a space delimited by the first shell and the second shell and is able to be set in rotation by the electric machine,
the main shaft being mounted on the second shell by way of a first rolling bearing (53),
wherein the first rolling bearing is mounted without clearance (see Fig. 5) on the second shell by way of first axial retention means (clip 56 or abutting feature 57).
Regarding Claim 2, ‘812 discloses
the first axial retention means (57) are located between the first rolling bearing and the second shell.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, ‘812 discloses a second rolling bearing (54)
mounted on the first shell (38) and disposed between the main shaft and the first shell
(see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, ‘812 discloses
the second rolling bearing is a roller bearing (see Abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, ‘812 discloses
the second rolling bearing is mounted with clearance on the first shell (i.e. a clearance/gap exists horizontally, between 54 and the far right side wall of 38 that is opposite the end of the shaft).
Regarding Claims 11 and 17, ‘812 discloses
an intermediate shaft (i.e. the hollow shaft portion of 47 that extends axially to the right end of right bearing 93) which cooperates by meshing with the main shaft (i.e. at least indirectly), the intermediate shaft being mounted on the second shell by way of a third rolling bearing (i.e. the left 93), the third rolling bearing is mounted without clearance on the second shell by way of second axial retention means (i.e. 93 is seen to be directly against the second shell and has the axial lip feature, see Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 13, ‘812 discloses
the intermediate shaft is positioned in the same radial footprint as that of the electric machine (i.e. the hollow shaft portion of 47 is within the radial footprint/vertical height of 31 in Fig. 2, at least at its lower circumferential end).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/145812 in view of JP 60-189616.
Regarding Claim 3, ‘812 does not explicitly disclose a circlip or screw.
‘616 discloses a first axial retention means to be a screw (21/22 in Fig. 2, 23 in Fig. 3) for the purpose of securing bearing 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of ‘812 by including the screw as disclosed by ‘616, for
the purpose of securing bearing 15.
Regarding Claim 6, ‘812 discloses the first rolling bearing has an outer ring able to be mounted on the second shell (i.e. the outer race that abuts 57a) and an inner ring able to be mounted on the main shaft (i.e. the inner race on 51a) but does not disclose the rod and screw configuration claimed.
‘616 discloses the screw being formed by a rod (i.e. shaft of 21) and by a screw head (i.e. to which 21 points in Fig. 2), the rod being screwed into the second shell such that the outer ring bears against the screw head (Fig. 2), for the purpose of securing bearing 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of ‘812 by including the rod and screw head
configuration as disclosed by ‘616, for the purpose of securing bearing 15.
Regarding Claim 7, ‘812 does not disclose a washer.
‘616 discloses at least one elastic washer (22, wherein it is noted that all materials have some inherent elasticity) is mounted between the second shell and the outer ring and/or between the outer ring and the screw head, for the purpose of securing bearing 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of ‘812 by including the elastic washer as disclosed by ‘
616, for the purpose of securing bearing 15.
Claim(s) 3-5, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/145812 in view of CN 104343827.
Regarding Claims 3, 4 and 15, ‘812 discloses the first rolling bearing has an outer ring able to be mounted on the second shell (i.e. the outer race that abuts 57a) and an inner ring able to be mounted on the main shaft (i.e. the inner race on 51a) but does not disclose grooves and a circlip as claimed.
‘827 discloses a first axial retention means being a circlip (1), wherein an outer ring (2) has a first peripheral groove (Fig. 5) and the second shell (11) has a second peripheral groove (13), the outer ring and the second shell being positioned with respect to one another in such a way that the circlip (1) is housed inside the first groove and the second groove (Fig. 5), for the purpose of securing the bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of ‘812 by including the circlip as disclosed by ‘827, for
the purpose of securing the bearing.
Regarding Claim 5, ‘812 discloses the first rolling bearing (53) has an outer ring
(i.e. the outer race that abuts 57a) able to be mounted on the second shell and an
inner ring (i.e. the inner race on 51a) able to be mounted on the main shaft, the second
shell having a stop (i.e. the recessed wall of 57/57a). It is noted that by the modification
of Claim 4 above, the circlip (1) would be positioned bearing against the stop and
against the outer ring (i.e. directly against the outer ring and indirectly against the stop
as per Fig. 5 of ‘827).
Regarding Claim 20, ‘812 discloses a second rolling bearing (54) mounted on
the first shell (38) and disposed between the main shaft and the first shell (see Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over WO 2017/145812.
Regarding Claim 12, ‘812 discloses the intermediate shaft is mounted on the
first shell by way of a fifth rolling bearing (i.e. the right 93) but does not disclose the fifth
rolling bearing to be a roller bearing.
However, ‘812 disclose 53 and 54 to be roller bearings, therefore it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify
the invention of ‘812 by including a roller bearing as disclosed by ‘812, since it is known
to exist, taught by the reference in a different location and therefore obvious to try, for
the purpose of securing the shaft while allowing for rotation.
Regarding Claim 18, ‘812 discloses
the intermediate shaft is positioned in the same radial footprint as that of the electric machine (i.e. the hollow shaft portion of 47 is within the radial footprint/vertical height of 31 in Fig. 2, at least at its lower circumferential end).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 19 are 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art of record shows a differential to mesh with the intermediate shaft and to be mounted on the second shell as claimed (Claims 14 and 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 5:30pm.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights