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 13-24 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.
In claim 13, the phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” is not defined by the claims nor in the specification. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how the phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” differs or is the same to --“identical Axle Torque--” It is not clear what is balanced to what and how the balancing is performed. In addition, and acceleration is counter a deceleration, therefore how does one balance an “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques”? The applicant merely regurgitated the phrase from the specification section 0008 and pasted it in the claims without explaining the meaning thereof.
Therefore term, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” needs to be described and explained more precisely in the disclosure.
In addition, in claim 13, the phrase, “the drive distribution provides a greater part of a drive torque than a braking torque is applied to both axles overall on a front axle” is not proper idiomatic English and makes not grammatical sense and confuses the meaning of the claim.
The rest of the claims are rejected for having similar deficiencies as claim 13 or for depending on claim 13.
Claim 14 recites, “the drive distribution provides a greater part of a drive torque than a braking torque is applied to both axles overall on a front axle.”
The applicant has not shown how the recited, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” is distinct from the recited, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques”. A torque is recited in claim 13 and another torque is recited in claim 14. It is respectfully submitted that the phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” in claim 13 is meaningless compared to the phrase, “the drive distribution provides a greater part of a drive torque than a braking torque is applied to both axles overall on a front axle.” In claim 14.
In addition, Claims 14 is controversial to claim 13 because claim 13 insists that, “….., the first prime mover and the second prime mover are operated with “…..identical axle-torque balances…..” in the triggered drive distribution; however, claim 14 on the contrary recites, “…… a greater part of a drive torque than a braking torque is applied to both axles overall on a front axle.”, emphasis added. Therefore, the claim requirements of claim 14 are contrary to the claim requirements of claim 13.
The rejection of claim 14 similarly applies to claims 17, 20 for being contrary to claim 13. That is the torques in claim 13 are identical while the torques in claim 17 are referred to as different and also identical at the same time.
Torques in claim 13 are referred to as, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques”. Then the torques in claim 17 are referred to as, “differing axle-torque balances, which are identical on both axles….,”. Therefore, the recited “differing axle-torque balances, which are identical on both axles….,” in claim 17 lack antecedent basis.
In addition, Claim 13 calls for, “triggering a predetermined drive distribution to the first driven axle and the second driven axle, where in the triggered drive distribution, the first prime mover and the second prime mover are operated with identical axle-torque balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques on the first driven axle and on the second driven axle; in the triggered” while claim 16 calls for, “differing drive distributions to the first driven axle and the second driven axle are predetermined for differing required decelerations of the motor vehicle.” Applicant is requested to be consistent with the claim limitations.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites, “20. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 13, wherein: after identifying the indication to decelerate the motor vehicle and before entering the crawling mode, operating the motor vehicle in a deceleration mode with an increased deceleration torque on the front axle and with an increased acceleration torque on the rear axle; and …….”, emphasis added.
Claim 21 recites, “after a standstill, a requisite deceleration torque is applied equally by both prime movers to maintain the standstill.”
On the other hand, the specification recites the phrase, “[0024] According to one embodiment, in the course of putting an identified desire for deceleration into effect outside of a crawling mode firstly a classical deceleration mode with a relatively higher deceleration torque on the front axle and with a relatively higher acceleration torque on the rear axle is triggered, and the predetermined drive distribution is triggered in the course of the crawling mode or after entering it.“
There is no support for the limitations in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amends the claims and argues that the limitations of claim 13 are explicitly and clear as in the specification, sections 0008-00011. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the passages in the specification do not in particular explain the meaning of the limitations in claim 13 for example the phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” is not defined by the claims nor in the specification. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how the phrase, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” differs or is the same to --“identical Axle Torque--” It is not clear what is balanced to what and how the balancing is performed. In addition, and acceleration is counter a deceleration, therefore how does one balance an “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques”? The applicant merely regurgitated the phrase from the specification section 0008 and pasted it in the claims without explaining the meaning thereof. These phrases are not standard phrases in the art in the manner applicant made them up without explaining the meaning thereof.
Therefore term, “identical Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques” needs to be described and explained more precisely in the disclosure.
The rest of the claims are rejected for having similar deficiencies as claim 13.
Applicant’s argument is more focused on how the torques are applied. The question is not how they are applied, but rather the meaning of for example the phrase, “Axle Torque Balances of acceleration torques and deceleration torques”. The phrase is not clear and makes no grammatical sense. These are not phrases common to the art, rather they are phrases coined out by the applicant.
Conclusion
The prior art, Nahrwold (US 11661066) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nahrwold discloses: A method for operating a motor vehicle with a first driven axle, to which a first electric prime mover (first electric motor) is assigned (Fig. 1, part 105a; col. 2, lines 45-67), and a second driven axle, to which a second electric drive motor (second electric motor) is assigned, in a creeping mode (Fig. 1, part 105b; col. 5, lines 45-67), comprising:
identifying an indication to decelerate the motor vehicle (a degree of application of brake pedal 150 by human 142 or engine ; col. 6, lines 47 to col 6, lines 28);
triggering (i.e. controlling) a predetermined drive distribution to the two axles (col. 6, lines 47 to col 6, lines 28);
wherein, the first drive motor and the second drive motor are operated with identical axle torques (i.e at when the torques of the front and rear axles = 0; Or front axle and the rear axle to a 50:50 torque/power distribution; col. 13, lines 51-57).
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 571 270 5376. 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights