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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated July 24, 2026. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that primary reference Arbanas fails to disclose the newly added feature of connecting a hydraulic pump powered by the at least one first electric machine to a hydraulic motor connected to the at least one second vehicle wheel driven by the at least one second electrical machine to thereby transfer power from the at least one first electric machine to the at least one second electric machine. More particularly, first, Applicant asserts that each electric motor in primary reference Arbanas independently drives its respective wheel through its own planetary gear and output shaft and that pressure equalization between the pumps of Arbanas does not so as to transfer power form the at least one first electric machine to the at least one second electrical machine. Second, Applicant argues that the pumps 60 of Arbanas are not driven by the motors 103/104, but instead by reaction elements of a planetary gear. Finally, Applicant points out fundamental differences between the present invention and Arbanas.
In response to Applicant’s first and second arguments, the Office notes that the motor drives the planetary gear which in turn drives the pump. Accordingly, they are not only connected, albeit indirectly, but also works together to drive hydraulic fluid through the hydraulic lines. As such, during a pressure balancing between the two pumps, the pressure balancing would cause fluid to move towards the first or second pump. This pressure equalization and hydraulic fluid movement would appear to in turn drive the pump, planetary gear and corresponding motor thereby causing the pressurization formed through one motor, planetary gear and pump configuration to effectuate transfer of power from one motor to the other. Regarding Applicant’s third argument, while fundamental differences appear to exist between the present invention and Arbanas, the Office maintains that those differences are not articulated within the claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a control arrangement” in claims 13 and 14, and “a control device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In looking at the Written Description, “a control arrangement” and “control unit” comprise a computing unit, as described in pages 22 and 23.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 6,592,486, to Arbanas et al. (hereinafter Arbanas).
As per claim 1, and similarly with respect to claims 13-15, Arbanas discloses a method for powering a vehicle (e.g. see Abstract, wherein a vehicle drive assembly is provided), the vehicle comprising at least one first electric machine configured to provide a power to at least one first vehicle wheel (e.g. see Figs. 6 and 7, and col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein a drive assembly 100 for a vehicle is provided including a first electric motor 103 configured to drive a first wheel 111), and at least one second electric machine configured to provide a power to at least one second vehicle wheel (e.g. see Figs. 6 and 7, and col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein the drive assembly further includes a second electric motor 104 configured to drive a first wheel 112), wherein the at least one first electric machine and the at least one second electric machine are interconnected by a hydraulic connection (e.g. see Fig. 6, and col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein the first electric motor is connected to the second electric motor via hydraulic pumps 60 and hydraulic lines 105 and 107) connecting a hydraulic pump powered by the at least one first electric machine to a hydraulic motor connected to the at least one second vehicle wheel driven by the at least one second electrical machine to thereby transfer power from the at least one first electric machine to the at least one second electric machine (e.g. see Fig. 6, and col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 10, wherein the two pumps 60 are interconnected via lines 105 and 107 and balance pressure therebetween (i.e. application of power from one pump to the other); the Office further notes that as the motor, planetary gear and pump are connected on each system, when valve 109 is opened during balancing of pressure, the pressure formed as a result of one motor would effectually cause drive to the other motor, via a corresponding pump and planetary gear), the method comprising, for at least one vehicle driving condition: transferring a power between the at least one first electric machine and the at least one second electric machine via the hydraulic connection (e.g. see col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein during skidding of one of the wheels, the application of force between the first and second motors, generated by their respective pumps, is balanced).
As per claim 2, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one vehicle driving condition occurs when a traction of at least one first vehicle wheel differs from the traction of the at least one second vehicle wheel, the method further comprising: transferring power from the at least one first electric machine to the at least one second electric machine when the traction of the at least one second vehicle wheel exceeds the traction of the at least one first vehicle wheel, and vice versa (e.g. see col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein during skidding of one of the wheels, the application of force between the first and second motors, generated by their respective pumps, is balanced).
As per claim 3, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one first vehicle wheel and the at least one second vehicle wheel are located on a common vehicle axle (e.g. see Fig. 8).
As per claim 4, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least one first vehicle wheel is a wheel of a first vehicle axle of the vehicle, and the at least one second vehicle wheel is a wheel of a second vehicle axle (e.g. see Fig. 7 and 9).
As per claim 5, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the first vehicle axle is mechanically separated from the second vehicle axle (e.g. see Fig. 7).
As per claim 6, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 4, and further discloses wherein the at least one first electric machine is mechanically separated from the at least one second electric machine (e.g. see Fig. 7).
As per claim 8, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a magnitude of power transferred from the at least one first electric machine and/or the at least one second electric machine over the hydraulic connection is based on one or more parameters related to the at least one vehicle driving condition (e.g. see col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein during skidding of one of the wheels, the application of force between the first and second motors, generated by their respective pumps, is balanced).
As per claim 9, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the parameters related to the at least one vehicle driving condition comprise one or more of: a rotational speed of the at least one first electric machine and/or the at least one second electric machine, a wheel slip of the at least one first vehicle wheel and/or the at least one second vehicle wheel, a weight of the vehicle, an inclination of an approaching road section, a rate or a rate of change of an acceleration request, an available power that may be transferred between the vehicle and the road, a vehicle drive mode, a road condition of a coming road section, a vehicle steering angle, and/or a load on vehicle axles of the vehicle, and/or a power request to a Power Take-Off (PTO) connected to the at least one first electric machine and/or the at least one second electric machine (e.g. see col. 6, line 45, to col. 7, line 28, wherein during skidding of one of the wheels, the application of force between the first and second motors, generated by their respective pumps, is balanced).
As per claim 11, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, and further discloses wherein one or both of the at least one first and at least one second electric machine is configured to power a hydraulic pump for providing hydraulic fluid to a hydraulic motor connected to the at least one wheel driven by the other of the at least one first and at least one second electric machine to thereby transfer power from the one of the at least one first and at least one second electric machine to the other (e.g. see Fig. 6, wherein fluid is pumped between hydraulic pumps 60 of the first and second motors 103/104 resulting to application of power).
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.
Claims 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbanas, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0157787, to Van Dingenen.
As per claim 7, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one first electric machine and/or the at least one second electric machine is configured to power a Power Take-Off (PTO) via operation of the hydraulic connection, and wherein the at least one vehicle driving condition comprises a PTO power request, the method further comprising: transferring power from the at least one first electric machine or the at least one second electric machine to the hydraulically connected PTO. However, Van Dingenen teaches a power take-off being powered by a first and second electric machine (e.g. see Fig. 2 and para 0020). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Arbanas to include a powering a power take-off to power other components of the vehicle as taught by Van Dingenen.
As per claim 10, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: disconnecting the at least one first electric machine from the at least one first vehicle wheel and/or the at least one second electric machine from the at least one second vehicle wheel prior to transferring power from the disconnected electric machine over the hydraulic connection. However, Van Dingenen teaches the use of clutches for providing selective power to a power take-off through a hydraulic connection (e.g. see Fig. 2 and para 0004). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Arbanas to include selective powering to a power take-off for the purpose of controlling power applied thereto.
As per claim 12, Arbanas, as modified by Van Dingenen, teaches the features of claim 10, and Arbanas further discloses wherein a hydraulic pressure in the hydraulic connection is increased when power is to be transferred between the at least one first electric machine and the at least one second electric machine (e.g. the Office notes that the transfer of hydraulic fluid requires increasing hydraulic pressure).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbanas, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0238812, to O’Brien.
As per claim 17, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the at least one vehicle driving condition is a condition in which excess power is available in the at least one first electric machine while additional power is required at the at least one second vehicle wheel, and wherein transferring the power comprises transferring the excess power from the at least one first electric machine to the at least one second electric machine to increase a total power applied to the vehicle. However, O’Brien teaches transferring power from a first motor/ pump to a second motor/ pump when the second/pump requires additional energy for starting an engine (e.g. see Fig. 1 and Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Arbanas to include distribution of unused energy, when required, for the purpose reducing overall power generating configurations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbanas, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0373282, to Trinchieri et al. (hereinafter Trinchieri), and in further view of Designer’s Choice.
As per claim 18, Arbanas discloses the features of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the power is transferred when a difference in wheel slip of the at least one first vehicle wheel and the at least one second vehicle wheel, or a difference in rotational speed of the at least one first electric machine and the at least one second electric machine, reaches a threshold value larger than 0% and smaller than 10%. However, Trinchieri teaches transferring torque from a first motor to a second motor when the wheel rotate at different speed for the purpose of limiting slippage (e.g. see para 0033). With respect to the range of 0% to 10%, it is merely a matter of how much slippage is allowed before intervention of slip control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicants’ invention to modify the system of Arbanas to include distribution of torque during a slip condition for the purpose of stabilizing motion of the vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims are objected to, but would be allowable if amended to include the features of the claims which they are dependent upon:
Claim 19 features of “wherein, when different gear ratios are applied to the at least one first electric machine and the at least one second electric machine, a rotational speed of the at least one first electric machine and/or the at least one second electric machine is compensated with a gear ratio difference before a difference in rotational speed is established,” when considered in view of other claim features, renders the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. More particularly, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest compensating gear ratios of electric machines before a difference in rotation speed is established.
Claim 20 features of “wherein a magnitude of power transferred over the hydraulic connection is determined based on a power required to propel or brake the vehicle on an approaching road section according to a required vehicle speed,” when considered in view of other claim features, renders the claims novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. More particularly, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a magnitude of hydraulic power transfer based upon an approaching road section and vehicle speed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. McPherson whose telephone number is (313) 446-6543. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571 272-9855. 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.
/JAMES M MCPHERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663B
Prosecution Insights