DETAILED ACTION
This Final Action is in response to the amended claims filed on 2/5/2026.
Claims 21-37 are currently pending.
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 .
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 (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 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) 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2012/0271496).
As to claim 21 Yamamoto discloses a dual path electric powertrain for a machine having a frame (figure 4 #13) forming a motor cavity (figure 4), the dual path electric powertrain comprising:
a first motor drive assembly (figure 2 #2A) that is mounted to a first lateral side of the machine (See the attached modified drawing below for the mounting points to mount to the first lateral side of the machine), the first motor drive assembly including:
a first final drive assembly (figure 2 #10A) to engage a first ground engaging element (wheel) of the machine,
a first electric motor (figure 2 #2A) to provide torque to the first final drive assembly,
a first gear assembly (figure 2 #12A) mechanically coupled between the first electric motor and the first final drive assembly, and
a first brake assembly (figure 2 #60A) to retard the first final drive assembly; and
a second motor drive assembly (figure 1 #2B) being independent from the first drive motor assembly and mounted to a second lateral side of the machine (See the attached modified drawing below for the mounting points to mount to the first lateral side of the machine), that is opposite the first lateral side (shown in figures 1 and 2), the second motor drive assembly including:
a second final drive assembly (figure 1 #10B) to engage a second ground engaging element (wheel) of the machine, a second electric motor (figure 1 #2B) to provide torque to the second final drive assembly (figure 1 #10B)
a second gear assembly (figure 1 #12B) mechanically coupled between the second electric motor and the second final drive assembly, and a second brake assembly (figure 1 #60B) to retard the second final drive assembly.
As to the new limitation of “ a second motor drive assembly being independent from the first drive motor assembly and mounted to a second lateral side of the machine” the applicants drawings disclose the connection of both motors (see applicants figure 2 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
801
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And both motors in a case/frame (figure 4 #405) within a cavity (figure 4 #410) assembly (see applicants figure 4 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
646
557
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art discloses the same features (shown in the prior at drawing below)
PNG
media_image3.png
868
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shown above the motors and frame can be interpreted to be the same as those of the applicants. Therefore “being independent from the first drive motor assembly “ must be interpreted to mean two independent motors that can be connected within a case as shown in the applicants drawing.
As to the motors being mounted to a first and second lateral side of the machine. The above drawing shows the mounting points to be able to mount to the lateral sides of a machine.
As to claim 22 Yamamoto discloses the motor drive assembly of claim 21, wherein the first electric motor is a first switched reluctance motor and the second electric motor is a second switched reluctance motor. (The motors are both stator and rotor motors which are defined as reluctance motor, see paragraph 0091)
As to claim 23 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first gear assembly provides a gear reduction between the first electric motor and the first final drive, and the second gear assembly provides a gear reduction between the second electric motor and the second final drive. (Planetary gears, provides the gear reduction. Paragraph 0090)
As to claim 24 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first gear assembly mechanically coupled to a first rotor shaft (figure 2 #15A) of the first electric motor and a first axle (figure 2 #10A) of the first final drive assembly and wherein the second gear assembly mechanically coupled to a second rotor shaft (figure 2 #15A) of the second electric motor and a second axle (figure 2 #10A) of the second final drive assembly.
As to claim 25 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first brake assembly (figure 2 #60A) includes a first brake housing mechanically connected to a first motor housing of the first electric motor and the second brake assembly includes a second brake 4housing mechanically connected to a second motor housing of the second electric motor. (Shown in figure 4 all the housings are mechanically connected)
As to claim 26 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first motor and the second motor are positioned in the motor cavity of then frame. (shown in the frame #13 in figure 4)
As to claim 27 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first motor drive assembly and the second motor drive assembly have at least one of: a same set of dimensions, or a same set of performance specifications. (shown in the figures they have the same dimensions)
As to claim 28 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first motor drive assembly and the second motor drive assembly have: a same type of final drive assembly, a same type of electric motor, a same type of planetary gear assembly, and a same type of brake assembly. (the figures show the left are right systems are symmetrical having all the same features)
As to claim 29 Yamamoto discloses the dual path electric powertrain of claim 21, wherein the first planetary gear assembly (figure 2 #12) and the second planetary gear assembly (figure 2 #12) provide a same gear reduction. (the figures show the left are right systems are symmetrical having all the same features)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the modified rejection above that addresses the new limitations that create Applicant’s arguments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-37 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art discloses the dual motor powertrain designed with tracks.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERMAN D MANLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5539. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5:30 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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
SHERMAN D. MANLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/SHERMAN D MANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3747
/LOGAN M KRAFT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights