DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/796,340 filed on August 7th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 5th, 2025, April 23rd, 2025, January 8th, 2025, October 30th, 2024 and September 18th, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 2, please change the recitation of “wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine” to - - wherein [[the]] a rotor of the rotating electrical machine - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 3, please change the recitation of “wherein a gear ratio between a drive wheel of the BEV” to - - wherein a gear ratio between [[a]] the drive wheel of the BEV - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, please change the recitation of “less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears” to - - less than [[the]] a diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 11 (line 18), please change the recitation of “couple to a drive wheel of the BEV” to - - couple to [[a]] the drive wheel of the BEV - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 11 (line 10).
Regarding Claim 12, please change the recitation of “wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine” to - - wherein [[the]] a rotor of the rotating electrical machine - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 19, please change the recitation of “less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears” to - - less than [[the]] a diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears - - to establish antecedent basis.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-7 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-15 of US 12,253,153. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting claims 1-7 and 11-18 in the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-3, 5-9 and 11-15 of US 12,253,153.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches an electric drive system in a battery electric vehicle (BEV) (col. 5, lines 49-50), comprising:
an output shaft, configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV, having a face gear at a distal end (col. 5, lines 51-52);
a differential, including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage receiving reduced axial length pinion gears rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage via gear pins (col. 5, lines 53-55); and
a housing that receives the differential having an outer surface that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine of the BEV (col. 5, lines 56-58),
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears engage the face gear and permit angular displacement of the output shaft relative to another output shaft (col. 5, lines 58-60).
Regarding Claim 2, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 5 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine concentrically receives the housing (see claim 5).
Regarding Claim 3, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 6 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein a gear ratio between a drive wheel of the BEV and the output shaft is greater than or equal to eight to one (see claim 6).
Regarding Claim 4, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein the reduced diameter pinion gear cage includes a central hub, spokes, smaller pinion gear slots and apertures on an outer surface of the reduced diameter pinion gear cage that receive the gear pins and rotatable secure the reduced axial length pinion gears relative to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage (col. 5, lines 61-65).
Regarding Claim 5, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 4,
claim 2 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising receptacles in the central hub that receive the gear pins (see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 6, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 3 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising bearings positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft and the housing (see claim 3).
Regarding Claim 7, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 7 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing (see claim 7).
Regarding Claim 11, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches an electric drive system in a battery electric vehicle (BEV) (col. 6, lines 22-23), comprising:
an output shaft, configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV, having a face gear at a distal end (col. 6, lines 24-25);
a differential, including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage receiving reduced axial length pinion gears rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage via gear pins (col. 6, lines 26-28);
a housing that receives the differential having an outer surface that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine of the BEV (col. 6, lines 29-31); and
one or more reduction gearboxes coupled to the output shaft and configured to couple to a drive wheel of the BEV (col. 6, lines 32-34),
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears engage the face gear and permit angular displacement of the output shaft relative to another output shaft (col. 6, lines 34-35).
Regarding Claim 12, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 11 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine concentrically receives the housing (see claim 11).
Regarding Claim 13, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 12 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein a gear ratio between of the one or more reduction gearboxes is greater than or equal to eight to one (see claim 12; see 112(b) rejection below).
Regarding Claim 14, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 13 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein the one or more reduction gearboxes includes a two-stage-reduction gearbox (see claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches wherein the reduced diameter pinion gear cage includes a central hub, spokes, smaller pinion gear slots and apertures on an outer surface of the smaller pinion gear cage that receive the gear pins and rotatable secure the reduced axial length pinion gears relative to the smaller pinion gear cage (see col. 6, lines 37-41).
Regarding Claim 16, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 15,
claim 9 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising receptacles in the central hub that receive the gear pins (see claim 9).
Regarding Claim 17, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 14 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising bearings positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft and the housing (see claim 14).
Regarding Claim 18, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 15 of US 12,253,153 teaches further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing (see claim 15).
Claims 8, 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of US 12,253,153, in view of Dye (US 6,083,133).
Regarding Claim 8, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,253,153 does not teach “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”.
Dye teaches wherein an axial length (l) of a reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, “bevel pinions” 26) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (26; see Fig. 1; col. 1, line 16 – “Low cost, small packaging, and good reliability are some of the reasons bevel gear differentials have remained a standard for automobiles and trucks since differentials first entered widespread use”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,253,153 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Regarding Claim 10, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,253,153 does not teach “wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears”.
Dye teaches reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears (Fig. 1, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,253,153 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Regarding Claim 19, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Claim 8 of US 12,253,153 does not teach “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”.
Dye teaches wherein an axial length (l) of a reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, 26) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 8 of US 12,253,153 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. 12,253,153, in view of Cross + Morse (https://www.crossmorse.com/images/specifications/bevel-and-mitre-gears.pdf). See NPL provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 9, claim 1 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,253,153 does not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below; Catalogue No. 1618).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,253,153 as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by claim 1 of US 12,253,153 by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 20, claim 8 of US 12,253,153 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Claim 8 of US 12,253,153 does not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below; Catalogue No. 1618).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by claim 8 of US 12,253,153 as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by claim 8 of US 12,253,153 by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Claims 1-6 and 11-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-12 of US 12,492,742. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because conflicting claims 1-6 and 11-17 in the instant application are anticipated by claims 1-5 and 7-12 of US 12,492,742.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches an electric drive system in a battery electric vehicle (BEV) (col. 6, lines 35-36), comprising:
an output shaft, configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV, having a face gear at a distal end (col. 6, lines 37-38);
a differential, including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage receiving reduced axial length pinion gears rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage via gear pins (col. 6, lines 39-41); and
a housing that receives the differential having an outer surface that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine of the BEV (col. 6, lines 44-45),
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears engage the face gear and permit angular displacement of the output shaft relative to another output shaft (col. 6, lines 48-50).
Regarding Claim 2, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 2 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine concentrically receives the housing (see claim 2).
Regarding Claim 3, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 3 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein a gear ratio between a drive wheel of the BEV and the output shaft is greater than or equal to eight to one (see claim 3).
Regarding Claim 4, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein the reduced diameter pinion gear cage includes a central hub, spokes, smaller pinion gear slots and apertures on an outer surface of the reduced diameter pinion gear cage that receive the gear pins and rotatable secure the reduced axial length pinion gears relative to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage (col. 6, lines 51-55).
Regarding Claim 5, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 4,
claim 4 of US 12,492,742 teaches further comprising receptacles in the central hub that receive the gear pins (see claim 4).
Regarding Claim 6, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
claim 5 of US 12,492,742 teaches further comprising bearings positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft and the housing (see claim 5).
Regarding Claim 11, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches an electric drive system in a battery electric vehicle (BEV) (col. 7, lines 8-9), comprising:
an output shaft, configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV, having a face gear at a distal end (col. 7, lines 10-11);
a differential, including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage receiving reduced axial length pinion gears rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage via gear pins (col. 7, lines 12-14);
a housing that receives the differential having an outer surface that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine of the BEV (col. 7, lines 16-17); and
one or more reduction gearboxes coupled to the output shaft and configured to couple to a drive wheel of the BEV (col. 7, lines 21-23),
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears engage the face gear and permit angular displacement of the output shaft relative to another output shaft (col. 7, lines 23-25).
Regarding Claim 12, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 8 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein the rotor of the rotating electrical machine concentrically receives the housing (see claim 8).
Regarding Claim 13, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 9 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein a gear ratio between of the one or more reduction gearboxes is greater than or equal to eight to one (see claim 9; see 112(b) rejection below).
Regarding Claim 14, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 10 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein the one or more reduction gearboxes includes a two-stage-reduction gearbox (see claim 10).
Regarding Claim 15, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches wherein the reduced diameter pinion gear cage includes a central hub, spokes, smaller pinion gear slots and apertures on an outer surface of the smaller pinion gear cage that receive the gear pins and rotatable secure the reduced axial length pinion gears relative to the smaller pinion gear cage (col. 7, line 27 - col. 8, line 3).
Regarding Claim 16, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 15,
claim 11 of US 12,492,742 teaches further comprising receptacles in the central hub that receive the gear pins (claim 11).
Regarding Claim 17, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
claim 12 of US 12,492,742 teaches further comprising bearings positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft and the housing (see claim 12).
Claims 8, 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of US 12,492,742, in view of Dye (US 6,083,133).
Regarding Claim 8, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,492,742 does not teach “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”.
Dye teaches wherein an axial length (l) of a reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, 26) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,492,742 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Regarding Claim 10, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,492,742 does not teach “wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears”.
Dye teaches reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears (Fig. 1, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,492,742 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears are bevel gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Regarding Claim 19, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Claim 7 of US 12,492,742 does not teach “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”.
Dye teaches wherein an axial length (l) of a reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, 26) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pinion gears taught by claim 7 of US 12,492,742 with the bevel pinion gears taught by Dye, such that “wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing a cost-effective differential gear arrangement.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of US 12,492,742, in view of Cross + Morse (https://www.crossmorse.com/images/specifications/bevel-and-mitre-gears.pdf).
Regarding Claim 9, claim 1 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 of US 12,492,742 does not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below; Catalogue No. 1618).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by claim 1 of US 12,492,742 as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by claim 1 of US 12,492,742 by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Regarding Claim 20, claim 7 of US 12,492,742 teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Claim 7 of US 12,492,742 does not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below; Catalogue No. 1618).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by claim 7 of US 12,492,742 as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by claim 7 of US 12,492,742 by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 13, in the recitation of “wherein a gear ratio between of the one or more reduction gearboxes is greater than or equal to eight to one” it is generally unclear what Applicant intended to recite. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein a gear ratio between the drive wheel of the BEV and the output shaft is greater than or equal to eight to one” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618). See translation provided by Applicant with the IDS filed September 18th, 2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Muehlberger teaches an electric drive system (see Fig. 1) in a battery electric vehicle (see Fig. 2), comprising:
an output shaft (“first side shaft” 12), configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV (see Fig. 2), having a face gear (“first axle shaft bevel gear” 14) at a distal end (innermost axial end of 12);
a differential (“differential” 6), including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage (“differential housing” 7) receiving reduced axial length pinion gears (“differential bevel gears” 8 and 9) rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage (7) via gear pins (“shafts” 10 and 11); and
a housing (“central carrier disk” 20) that receives the differential (6) having an outer surface (see Fig. 1) that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine (“rotor” 2 and “stator” 3) of the BEV,
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears (8, 9) engage the face gear (14) and permit angular displacement of the output shaft (12) relative to another output shaft (“second side shaft” 13).
Regarding Claim 2, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
wherein the rotor (Fig. 1, 2) of the rotating electrical machine (2, 3) concentrically receives the housing (20).
Regarding Claim 6, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
further comprising bearings (Fig. 1, “bearing arrangements” 17, 18) positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft (12) and the housing (20; see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, 8, 9) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (8, 9; see Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1,
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1; 8, 9) are bevel gears (see Fig. 1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Lian (US 2019/0299992), and in view of Woodgears (https://woodgears.ca/gear/ratio.html). See NPL provided by Applicant with the IDS filed September 18th, 2024.
Regarding Claim 3, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Muehlberger does not teach “wherein a gear ratio between a drive wheel of the BEV and the output shaft is greater than or equal to eight to one”. In other words, the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger does not comprise a reduction gearbox between the rotating electrical machine (Fig. 1, 2, 3) and the drive wheels (Fig. 2, 37.1, 37.2) of the electric drive system (Fig. 1, 1).
Lian teaches a gear reduction (Fig. 29, “gear reducer” 730) between an electric motor (“driving motor generator” 720) and a drive wheel of the electric drive system (see Fig. 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger with the reduction gearboxes taught by Lian, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger by providing the electric drive system with different gear ratios suitable for different vehicle applications.
Muehlberger or Lian do not teach “wherein a gear ratio between a drive wheel of the BEV and the output shaft is greater than or equal to eight to one”. In other words, Lian does not explicitly teach a gear ratio.
Woodgears teaches “Determining compound gear ratios (multiple stages) When a gear train has multiple stages, the gear ratio for the overall gearing system is the product of the individual stages. For example, for the gear at left the blue gears are 7 and 21 teeth, while the green gears are 9 and 30 teeth. Thus, the first gear ratio is 7:21 and the second is 9:30. Multiplying the two together gives (7x9):(21x30) = 63:630, which is 1:10. So the big green gear will make 1 turn for every 10 turns of the small blue gear”.
Woodgears explicitly teaches how to calculate gear ratios for multiple stage gear trains like the two-stage reduction gearbox taught by Lian, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable gear ratios to expand the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger and Lian by providing the electric drive system with different gear ratios suitable for different vehicle applications, 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. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. – Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Zeise (US 6,811,511).
Regarding Claim 7, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Muehlberger does not teach “further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing”. However, the two bearings (Fig. 1, 17, 18) taught by Muhlberger appear to be axially retained by respective retaining rings (see Fig. 1).
Zeise teaches C clips (Figs. 1-2, “axial ring” DIN 472) that axially secure respective face gears (“crown wheels” 5a, 5b) within a housing (“cylindrical casing” 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retaining rings taught by Muehlberger with the C clips taught by Zeise, such that “further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result of the substitution would have been predictable, and have the obvious advantage of axially retaining the pinion gear cage and the face gear taught by Muehlberger. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Cross + Morse (https://www.crossmorse.com/images/specifications/bevel-and-mitre-gears.pdf).
Regarding Claim 9, Muehlberger teaches the electric drive system recited in claim 1.
Muehlberger does not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below; Catalogue No. 1618).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by Muehlberger as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Claims 11-12, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlberger (DE 198 60 618), and in view of Lian (US 2019/0299992).
Regarding Claim 11, Muehlberger teaches an electric drive system (Fig. 1, 1) in a battery electric vehicle (BEV; see Fig. 2), comprising:
an output shaft (Fig. 1, 12), configured to couple with a drive wheel of the BEV (see Fig. 2), having a face gear (Fig. 1, 14) at a distal end (innermost axial end of 12);
a differential (6), including a reduced diameter pinion gear cage (7) receiving reduced axial length pinion gears (8, 9) rotatably connected to the reduced diameter pinion gear cage (7) via gear pins (10, 11);
a housing (20) that receives the differential (6) having an outer surface (see Fig. 1) that is configured to couple to a rotating electrical machine (2, 3) of the BEV (see Fig. 2); and
wherein the reduced axial length pinion gears (8, 9) engage the face gear (14) and permit angular displacement of the output shaft (12) relative to another output shaft (13).
Muehlberger does not teach “one or more reduction gearboxes coupled to the output shaft and configured to couple to a drive wheel of the BEV”.
Lian teaches one or more reduction gearboxes (Fig. 29, 730) coupled to an output shaft (721) and configured to couple to a drive wheel of a BEV (see Fig. 29; see [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger with the two-stage reduction gearboxes taught by Lian, such that “one or more reduction gearboxes coupled to the output shaft and configured to couple to a drive wheel of the BEV”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result of the combination would have been predictable, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger by providing the electric drive system with different speed ratios suitable for different vehicle applications.
Regarding Claim 12, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
Muehlberger teaches wherein the rotor (Fig. 1, 2) of the rotating electrical machine (2, 3) concentrically receives the housing (20).
Regarding Claim 14, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
Lian teaches wherein the one or more reduction gearboxes (Fig. 29, 730) includes a two-stage-reduction gearbox (730).
Regarding Claim 17, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
Muhlberger teaches further comprising bearings (Fig. 1, 17, 18) positioned between an outer surface of the output shaft (12) and the housing (20; radially between 12 and 20).
Regarding Claim 19, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11,
Muehlberger teaches wherein an axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (Fig. 1, 8, 9) is less than the diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears (8, 9; see Fig. 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Lian (US 2019/0299992), and in view of Woodgears (https://woodgears.ca/gear/ratio.html).
Regarding Claim 13, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Muehlberger or Lian do not teach “wherein a gear ratio between of the one or more reduction gearboxes is greater than or equal to eight to one” (see 112(b) rejection above). In other words, Lian does not explicitly teach a gear ratio.
Woodgears teaches “Determining compound gear ratios (multiple stages) When a gear train has multiple stages, the gear ratio for the overall gearing system is the product of the individual stages. For example, for the gear at left the blue gears are 7 and 21 teeth, while the green gears are 9 and 30 teeth. Thus, the first gear ratio is 7:21 and the second is 9:30. Multiplying the two together gives (7x9):(21x30) = 63:630, which is 1:10. So the big green gear will make 1 turn for every 10 turns of the small blue gear”.
Woodgears explicitly teaches how to calculate gear ratios for multiple stage gear trains like the two-stage reduction gearbox taught by Lian, so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable gear ratios to expand the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger and Lian by providing the electric drive system with different gear ratios suitable for different vehicle applications, 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. See MPEP 2144.05 II.A. – Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Lian (US 2019/0299992), and in view of Zeise (US 6,811,511).
Regarding Claim 18, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Muehlberger or Lian do not teach “further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing”. However, the two bearings (Fig. 1, 17, 18) taught by Muehlberger appear to be axially retained by respective retaining rings (see Fig. 1).
Zeise teaches C clips (Figs. 1-2, DIN 472) that axially secure respective face gears (5a, 5b) within a housing (3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retaining rings taught by Muehlberger with the C clips taught by Zeise, such that “further comprising C clips that axially secure the pinion gear cage and face gear within the housing”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result of the substitution would have been predictable, and have the obvious advantage of axially retaining the pinion gear cage and the face gear taught by Muehlberger. See MPEP 2144.06(II) - Substituting Equivalents Known for the Same Purpose.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlberger (DE 198 60 618), in view of Lian (US 2019/0299992), and in view of Cross + Morse. (https://www.crossmorse.com/images/specifications/bevel-and-mitre-gears.pdf).
Regarding Claim 20, Muehlberger and Lian teach the electric drive system recited in claim 11.
Muehlberger or Lian do not teach “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”.
Cross + Morse teaches a ratio (see example below) of diameter (F) of a reduced axial length pinion gear (see p. 5 of Cross + Morse) to axial length (E-H) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1 (see example below).
F
E
-
H
=
30.7
18.0
-
8.7
=
3.3
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size of the pinion gears taught by Muehlberger as suggested by Cross + Morse, such that “wherein a ratio of diameter (d) of the reduced axial length pinion gears to axial length (l) of the reduced axial length pinion gears is at least 3 to 1”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, and have the obvious advantage of expanding the marketability of the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger by providing different pinion gears suitable for different applications. Furthermore, courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In this case, discovering the optimum pinion gear size for the electric drive system taught by Muehlberger would have been obvious to try. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) – “Optimization within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections set forth in this Office Action.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights