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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-5 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4, 16-17, and 19-20 all include the term “optionally” followed by additional limitations. It is unclear whether these additional limitations are being positively claimed as the term “optionally” allows for that feature to be considered a feature that is not required. For examination purposes, these optional elements are deemed not to be required limitations. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected as being dependent on one of these rejected claims.
Claims 12 and 15 both include the conjunction “and/or” and while its inclusion does not always result in the claim being indefinite, its inclusion in these claims causes them to claim structural combinations that are not supported by the specification and it is unclear if these alternative combinations were intended. Namely, both of these claims recite that “each of the … intermediate gears” are in permanent mesh with the “second input gear and/or output gear.” This results in the claims including multiple gears on the layshaft where each of these layshaft gears is somehow in engagement with both the input and the output shaft; each of the layshaft gears being in engagement with the input shaft; or each of the layshaft gears in engagement with the output shaft. None of these combinations, however, are reasonably supported by the instant specification. Claims 13-14 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nellums et al. (US 2016/0076633).
Regarding claim 1, Nellums discloses a transmission system (see Fig. 1) for a working vehicle (see ¶0003) comprising a ground engaging structure (e.g., the wheels driven by the vehicle output 1012), the transmission system comprising a hydraulic drive motor (1008) and a transmission comprising:
an output member (1012) for driving the ground engaging structure;
a first input member (1016/1006) connectable to a prime mover (1002), wherein the transmission is operable to transmit drive from the first input member (1016) via a first drive path (via gearing 1034) to the output member in a mechanical drive mode (see e.g., ¶0033); and
a second input member (output shaft of motor 1008 that drives gear 1024) drivable by the operation of the hydraulic drive motor (1008), wherein the transmission is operable to transmit drive from the second input member via a second drive path (1024/1034) to the output member (1012) in a hydrostatic drive mode (see e.g., ¶0034);
wherein the transmission is configured so that there is a fixed ratio of rotation speed of the first input member to rotation speed of the output member in the mechanical drive mode (e.g., the intermeshing gears 1034, layshaft 1020 gears, and output gears 1012 is a fixed ratio).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 20, Nellums discloses that the hydrostatic drive is intended to be used at low operating speed mode and the direct drive is for high speed operating modes (see e.g., ¶0009-10) and that the drivetrain is operated by switching to the direct gear path to operate the device to improve inefficiencies in the hydrostatics and that the direct drive mode of operation is employed at about 18-20Km/h --see ¶0173, this switching to a direct drive from the low speed hydraulic drive along with the direct drive being employed at the 18-20Km/h point reads upon a reasonably broad interpretation of a control system configured to engage the switching between hydraulic and direct drive paths at a particular threshold speed.
Regarding claim 7, Nellums further discloses that the transmission comprises a first clutch device (1030) having an engaged state configured to connect the first input member (1016) to the first drive path (1034) when the transmission is in the mechanical drive mode, and a disengaged state configured to disconnect the first input member from the first drive path when the transmission is in the hydrostatic drive mode (see ¶0041).
Regarding claim 8, Nellums further discloses that the transmission comprises a second clutch device (1022) having an engaged state configured to connect the second input member (output shaft of motor 1008) to the second drive path (1024/1034) when the transmission is in the hydrostatic drive mode, and a disengaged state configured to disconnect the second input member from the second drive path when the transmission is in the mechanical drive mode (see ¶0041).
Regarding claims 9 (as best understood), Nellums further discloses that the first drive path comprises:
a first input gear (1034) configured for rotation with the first input member (1016/1006) when the transmission is in the mechanical drive mode, an output gear (1012) carried on the output member for rotation with the output member, a first layshaft (1020) between the first input member and the output member, and one or more intermediate gears carried on the first layshaft for rotation with the first layshaft (see Fig. 1), each of the one or more intermediate gears of the first layshaft being in permanent mesh with the first input gear (1034) and/or output gear (1012, as shown in Fig. 1, the layshaft 1020 has gears that are in permanent mesh with the engine output shaft 1016/1006 and the gears of the output 1012).
Regarding claim 10, Nellums further discloses that the one or more intermediate gears of the first layshaft (e.g., the right-most gear on layshaft 1020 in Fig. 1) comprise a single idler gear in permanent mesh with both the first input gear (1034) and the output gear (1012).
Regarding claim 12, Nellums further discloses that the second drive path comprises:
a second input gear (1024) configured for rotation with the second input member (output shaft of motor 1008) when the transmission is in the hydrostatic drive mode, an output gear carried on the output member (1012) for rotation with the output member, a second layshaft (1020) between the second input gear and the output gear, and one or more intermediate gears carried on the second layshaft for rotation with the second layshaft (see Fig. 1), each of the one or more intermediate gears of the second layshaft being in permanent mesh with the second input gear and/or output gear (e.g., the layshaft 1020 is in permanent mesh with the output gear).
Regarding claim 16, Nellums further discloses a driveline arrangement for a working vehicle comprising a ground engaging structure, the driveline arrangement comprising:
the transmission system of claim 1; a prime mover (1002) configured to drive the first input member of the transmission; a hydraulic pump (1004) for supplying pressurized hydraulic fluid to drive the hydraulic drive motor (1008), wherein the hydraulic pump is drivable by the prime mover; and
one or more output driveshafts coupled to the output member (1012) of the transmission, for driving the ground engaging structure of the working vehicle; optionally, wherein the hydraulic pump is a through-driven hydraulic pump positioned between the prime mover (1002) and the first input member (1006) of the transmission (see ¶0033 and Fig. 1 showing the through-driven shaft 1006 driven directly by the engine shaft 1016 through the pump 1004).
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 of this title, 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 4-5, 11, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nellums in view of Ore et al. (11,091,018).
Regarding claim 4, Nellums does not disclose the relative vertical spacing between the input member and the output members.
Ore teaches the well-known expedient of using a gear train to provide vertical spacing (drop distance) between a work machine’s transmission (12) input (27/24; see Figs. 2-3) and its output (38/28), where the input (27) is vertically above the output (38; see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the transmission system of Nellums to have a vertical drop distance achieved by the arrangement of the transmission gears as taught by Ore to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (e.g., using the stacked diameters of a transmission’s gearing to increase spacing between powertrain elements) to known devices (e.g., work machines having geartrains) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, while Ore in the above combination teaches that it is desirable to use the geartrain to create a vertical drop distance (42) between the input and output, it does not specify the distance is at least 220 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the Nellums combination have a drop distance of at least 220mm, since discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) The motivation for doing so would be to allow adequate spacing between the relatively large prime mover while maintaining a compact size (see ¶0004 of Nellums).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, Ore in the above combination teaches that the drop distance (42) is adjusted by altering the relative horizontal spacing between the rotational axes/shafts (27, 41, 29, 38) between the input and out shafts to increase and decrease the vertical height (42), but that the four configurations in Figs. 3-6 are only representative and that other arrangements are possible (see Col. 8, lines 9-37). While a fully vertical orientation is not specifically shown, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the Nellums combination have a vertically aligned orientation to maximize the drop distance as nothing more than a matter of design choice. The examiner separately notes that Applicant seeks to claim a patent on the arrangement of parts. To this point, the Applicant is informed that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It is further emphasized that Applicant has not advanced any novel or unexpected results or provided criticality for the arrangement. As noted by the courts, "it is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability." See Span-Deck, Inc., v. Fab-Con, Incorporated et al., 215 USPQ 835, 841. The particular configuration taught by the Applicant "appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance." Id.
Claims 6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nellums in view of Loeffler et al. (8,505,413).
Regarding claim 6, while Nellums shows a schematic view having both the prime mover’s input and the hydraulic motor’s input on the same side of the transmission (see Fig. 1), it does not specifically disclose that these features are on the same side.
Loeffler teaches another power split hydraulic transmission (see Fig. 3) having a transmission (51) receiving an input shaft (56) for direct drive from the prime mover (15) input and an input shaft (54) from a hydraulic motor (53). Both input shafts (54, 56) being arranged on the same side of the transmission (51).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the transmission of Nellums to have the input shafts of the two drives arranged on the same side of the transmission as taught by Loeffler to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., arranging the engine and hydraulic motor to be positioned on the same side of the transmission), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., providing a power split transmission); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., arranging the power elements to fit within a given space/footprint).
Regarding claim 17, as discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 16, Nellums discloses driveline arrangement with the recited features, but does not explicitly provide for the engine-driven pump to be mounted directly to the prime mover/engine.
Loeffler teaches that a hydrostatic pump (27a; see e.g., Fig., 3) can be directly mounted to a prime mover (15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the transmission of Nellums to have the prime mover-driven hydraulic pump be directly mounted to the prime mover as taught by Loeffler to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because the modification amounts to combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. Here, (1) the prior art included each element (as detailed above); (2) one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., using a bracket/flange to mount a pump of a power split drive to the prime mover), and in this combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately (e.g., providing a power split drive); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (e.g., arranging the power elements to fit within a given space/footprint).
Regarding claim 18, Nellums further discloses an intermediate driveshaft (e.g., the left-most portion of the shaft 1006 that enters clutch 1028 in Fig. 1) for driving the first input member (e.g., the right-most portion of shaft 1006 that exits clutch 1030) of the transmission, wherein the hydraulic pump (1004) comprises an input side directly coupled to an output driveshaft (1016) of the prime mover (1002) and an output side directly coupled to the intermediate driveshaft (see Fig. 1).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nellums in view of Kanda et al (6,997,831).
Regarding claims 13-14, while Nellums discloses that a layshaft (1020) can include multiple gears (see e.g., Fig. 1), it does not disclose that a stepped gear is used to change the gear ratio.
Kanda teaches another vehicle transmission including the well-known expedient of using a stepped gear (49, 50; see Fig. 2) on a layshaft (48) that drives an output (51) to change a gear ratio where the input gear (49) has more teeth/larger diameter than the output gear (50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the transmission of Nellums to use stepped gears on its layshaft as taught by Kanda to arrive at the claimed device with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them at least because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (stepped gears on a given transmission shaft) for another (fixed gear ratio gears on a transmission shaft) to obtain predictable results (e.g., a gear reduction along the geartrain).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE CLEMMONS whose telephone number is (313)446-4842. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, J Allen Shriver can be reached on 303-297-4337. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/STEVE CLEMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights