DETAILED ACTION
The following action is in response to the RCE filed for application 18/842,591 on January 23, 2026.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 29, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
In the claim, an “open end “ or a “cover defining” an open end does not necessarily include any vertical walls with circular openings in which the first inputs or outputs pass through. The “open end” is only a general area that is “open” and in the general radial vicinity of a specifically claimed limitation.
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 1-2, 8-13, 15-16 and 18 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.
With regard to claim 1:
On line 16, the limitation of “the first output shaft” lacks antecedent basis.
On lines 12-13, the limitations of “wherein one of the sun gear and the ring gear is fixed to the enclosure of the gear speed reducer” is redundant, since applicant has added “wherein the sun gear is grounded to the enclosure” on lines 10-11.
On lines 16-17, applicant has added the limitation “and the planet carrier is connected to the first output.” It can be shown, however, that this line is redundant, since applicant has already claimed “the planet carrier is integrally formed as a unitary structure with the first output shaft” on lines 15-16.
It is suggested that applicant remove the redundancies.
With regards to claims 13 and 15:
Applicant elected the embodiment of Fig. 3A on May 25, 2025 (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The bolded limitations of claims 13 and 15 do not read on this elected species. Instead of withdrawing claims 13 and 15 from consideration, the claims will be treated as best understood and it is suggested applicant cancel the bolded limitations (below).
13. A drive system comprising: a) an electric motor including a drive output and a housing, the drive output extending to an open end of the housing: b) a gear speed reducer having an enclosure mounted to the housing of the electric motor and having a plurality of first gears configured to provide a first speed reduction ratio between a first input, coaxially aligned with and coupled to the electric motor drive output, and a first output, the first input and the first output being coaxially aligned and extending to opposite open ends of the enclosure, the plurality of first gears including: i. a ring gear connected the first input; ii. a plurality of planet gears intermeshed with the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are connected to each other by a planet carrier integrally forming and connected to the first output; and iii. a sun gear intermeshed with the plurality of planet gears, the sun gear grounded to the enclosure; iv. wherein the sun gear is fixed to the electric motor housing.
15. (Currently Amended) A gear speed reducer for an electric vehicle, comprising: a) an enclosure defining opposite first and second open ends; b) a first input extending to the first open end and being configured for coupling to a coaxially aligned electric motor drive output, wherein the first input defines a front opening for connection to an electric motor; c) a first output coaxially aligned with the first input and extending to the second open end; and d) a plurality of first gears housed within the enclosure and configured to provide a first speed reduction ratio between the first input and the first output, the plurality of first gears including : i. a ring gear, wherein the first input is connected to the ring gear ;ii. a plurality of planet gears intermeshed with the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are connected to each other by a planet carrier formed integral with and connected to the first output; and iii. a sun gear intermeshed with the plurality of planet gears, wherein the sun gear is grounded to the enclosure; wherein one of the sun gear and the ring gear is fixed to an electric motor housing, the first input is supported by a first bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the first open end and the first output is supported by a second bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the second open end, and the enclosure includes a front cover defining the first open end and a first opening through which the first input extends and includes a back cover defining the second open end and a second opening through which the first output extends.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepan (US 20180298987). With regard to claim 13, Lepan teaches a drive system comprising: a) an electric motor 1 including a drive output and a housing (Fig. 1), the drive output extending to an open end of the housing (Fig. 1): b) a gear speed reducer having an enclosure 18 (Fig. 7) and having a plurality of first gears configured to provide a first speed reduction ratio between a first input 16, coaxially aligned with and coupled to the electric motor drive output, and a first output 15, the first input and the first output being coaxially aligned and extending to opposite open ends of the enclosure (Fig. 7), the plurality of first gears including: i. a ring gear 26 connected the first input; ii. a plurality of planet gears 24 intermeshed with the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are connected to each other by a planet carrier 22 integrally forming and connected to the first output; and iii. a sun gear 20 intermeshed with the plurality of planet gears, the sun gear 20 grounded to the enclosure 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (DE19841159C2) in view of Lepan ‘987. With regard to claim 1, Krause teaches a drive system for an electric vehicle, comprising: a. a standalone gear speed reducer 123 having a discrete enclosure (Fig. 2) with a plurality of first gears configured to provide a first speed reduction ratio between a first input 119 and a first output 131 of the gear speed reducer, the first input and the first output being coaxially aligned and extending to opposite open ends of the enclosure (Fig. 2), the plurality of first gears including: i) a ring gear connect to the first output 131; ii) a plurality of planet gears 127 intermeshed with the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are connected to each other by a planet carrier 127 integrally forming the first input; and iii) a sun gear 125 intermeshed with the plurality of planet gears, wherein the sun gear is grounded to the enclosure (Fig. 2); and wherein the first input 119 extends through the first open end and the first output 131 extends through the second open end, and wherein the planet carrier 128 is integrally formed as a unitary structure with the first input shaft, and the planet carrier is connected to the first input; b. a gearbox 33 having a plurality of second gears configured to provide a second speed reduction ratio between a second input 135 and a second output 45 of the gearbox, the second input being operably connected to the first output, the second output being configured to provide mechanical power for driving the electric vehicle; and c. an electric motor 3 having a housing 146 operably mounted to the gear speed reducer enclosure (Fig., 2) and having a third output 119 extending to an open end of the housing and being coaxially aligned with and operably connected to the first input 119 (Fig. 2). Krause lacks the specific teaching wherein the ring gear is connected to the first input and the carrier integrally forming the first output, wherein the planet carrier is integrally formed as a unitary structure with a first output shaft. Lepan teaches s similar drive system comprising a gear speed reducer with a discrete enclosure 18, a ring gear 26, planet gears 24, a planet carrier 22, and a sun gear 20 is grounded to the enclosure, a first input 16 and a first output 15, wherein the input can be the carrier and the ring gear can be the output (Fig. 3; similar to Krause) or the input can be the ring gear and the carrier can be the output (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the ring gear as the first input and the carrier as the first output (thereby producing the ring gear is connected to the first input and the carrier integrally forming the first output, wherein the planet carrier is integrally formed as a unitary structure with a first output shaft) in view of Lepan with reasonable expectation for success in order to produce a desired output ratio. With regard to claim 2, Krause teaches the system, wherein the gear speed reducer 123 is disposed between the electric motor 3 and the gearbox 33. With regard to claim 8, Krause teaches the system, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the first speed reduction ratio is between 1.3 to 1 and 3 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the first speed reduction ratio is between 1.3 to 1 and 3 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. With regard to claim 9, Krause teaches the system, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the first speed reduction ratio is 2 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the first speed reduction ratio of 2 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. With regard to claim 10, Krause teaches the system, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the first speed reduction ratio is 3 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the first speed reduction ratio of 3 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. With regard to claim 11, Krause teaches the system, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the electric motor provides a rotational speed between 25,000 and 30,000 revolutions per minute at the third output. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the system wherein the electric motor provides a rotational speed between 25,000 and 30,000 revolutions per minute at the third output with reasonable expectation for success, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing preferred input revolutions) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. With regard to claim 12, Krause teaches the system, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the second speed reduction ratio is at least 10 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Krause to employ the second speed reduction ratio of 10 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepan ‘987 in view of Barker (US 8397502). With regard to claim 15, Lepan teaches a gear speed reducer (Fig. 7) for an electric vehicle (intended use), comprising: a) an enclosure 18 defining opposite first and second open ends; b) a first input 16 extending to the first open end and being configured for coupling to a coaxially aligned electric motor drive output (Fig. 1), wherein the first input defines a front opening for connection to an electric motor 1; c) a first output 15 coaxially aligned with the first input and extending to the second open end; and d) a plurality of first gears housed within the enclosure and configured to provide a first speed reduction ratio between the first input and the first output, the plurality of first gears including : i. a ring gear 26, wherein the first input is connected to the ring gear ;ii. a plurality of planet gears 24 intermeshed with the ring gear, wherein the plurality of planet gears are connected to each other by a planet carrier 22 formed integral with and connected to the first output; and iii. a sun gear 20 intermeshed with the plurality of planet gears, wherein the sun gear 20 is grounded to the enclosure; the first input is proximate the first open end and the first output is the enclosure proximate the second open end (Fig. 7), and the enclosure includes a front cover 65 defining the first open end and a first opening through which the first input 16 extends and includes a back cover 64 defining the second open end and a second opening through which the first output 15 extends. Lepan lacks the specific teaching wherein the first input is supported by a first bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the first open end and the first output is supported by a second bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the second open end. Barker teaches a similar gear speed reducer comprising: a discrete enclosure (Fig. 1), a ring gear 18, planet gears 12, a carrier 10, a sun gear 16, wherein the ring gear is supported by a first bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the first open end (Fig. 1) and the carrier is supported by a second bearing assembly mounted to the enclosure proximate the second open end (Fig. 1), and the enclosure includes a front cover defining the first open end and a first opening through which the ring gear extends and includes a back cover defining the second open end and a second opening through which the carrier extends (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Lepan to employ a first and second bearing assembly to support the first input and first output proximate the first and second openings in view of Barker with reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce wear and keep first input and output aligned. With regard to claim 16, Lepan teaches the reducer, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the first speed reduction ratio is between 1.3 to 1 and 2 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Lepan to employ the first speed reduction ratio is between 1.3 to 1 and 2 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations. With regard to claim 18, Lepan teaches the reducer, but lacks the specific teaching wherein the first speed reduction ratio is 3 to 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Lepan to employ the first speed reduction ratio of 3 to 1 with reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Also, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices (employing a preferred reduction ratio) was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations.
Suggestions for Applicant
Should applicant amend the independent claims to overcome the 35 USC 112 issues, it is suggested applicant add the limitation (or similar wording) to each claim: wherein a bearing is radially located between teeth of the sun gear and the carrier.
Although Krause teaches of a bearing located between the sun gear 125 and the carrier 128, this would not be an obvious modification when the carrier is now the first output (connected to gearbox 33, after the modification in view of Lepan).
Lepan lacks this teaching, and Krause lacks the specific teaching of the bearing being radially located between teeth of the sun gear and the carrier.
It would be suggested that claim 3 be cancelled (as it no longer reads on the limitations of claim 1).
It would be suggested that claim 14 also be cancelled (since this claim would make the ring gear the fixed gear, which is not the embodiment claimed in claim 13).
These suggested amendments would overcome the prior art at cited and should place the application in condition for allowance.
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Submission of your response by facsimile transmission is encouraged. The central facsimile number is (571) 273-8300. Recognizing the fact that reducing cycle time in the processing and examination of patent applications will effectively increase a patent's term, it is to your benefit to submit responses by facsimile transmission whenever permissible. Such submission will place the response directly in our examining group's hands and will eliminate Post Office processing and delivery time as well as the PTO's mail room processing and delivery time. For a complete list of correspondence not permitted by facsimile transmission, see MPEP 502.01. In general, most responses and/or amendments not requiring a fee, as well as those requiring a fee but charging such fee to a deposit account, can be submitted by facsimile transmission. Responses requiring a fee which applicant is paying by check should not be submitting by facsimile transmission separately from the check.
Responses submitted by facsimile transmission should include a Certificate of Transmission (MPEP 512). The following is an example of the format the certification might take:
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the Patent and Trademark Office (Fax No. (571) 273-8300) on ____________ (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate: _____________________________________
_____________________________________
(Signature)
If your response is submitted by facsimile transmission, you are hereby reminded that the original should be retained as evidence of authenticity (37 CFR 1.4 and MPEP 502.02). Please do not separately mail the original or another copy unless required by the Patent and Trademark Office. Submission of the original response or a follow-up copy of the response after your response has been transmitted by facsimile will only cause further unnecessary delays in the processing of your application; duplicate responses where fees are charged to a deposit account may result in those fees being charged twice.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROGER L PANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 05:30-16:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/ROGER L PANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/ROGER L. PANG/
Examiner
Art Unit 3655B
February 19, 2026