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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on December 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 18, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0022, line 6, “proximity” should be changed to --in proximity-- or --proximate--.
In paragraph 0071, line 1, “has” should be changed to --have--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the input shaft must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5 and 6 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.
Claim 5 suffers from double inclusion, since it can be read to include the same element twice (i.e., “an output shaft” is recited in claim 1, line 7, and then “an output shaft” is recited again in claim 5, line 2). MPEP §2173.05(o). This rejection could be overcome by changing “an output” to --the output-- in claim 5, line 2.
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, 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 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz et al. (US 2021/0188031 A1) in view of Takeda (WO 2021/145100 A1). Dutkiewicz teaches a drive system 3 for an electric vehicle 1, comprising: a gearbox 5 that outputs a driving force from a motor 4; a final reduction gear (at 7) for transmitting the input driving force to left and right wheels (9a, 9b); and a propeller shaft (e.g., 60) extending in a front-rear direction and connecting the gearbox and the final reduction gear, wherein the propeller shaft comprises: an input end part (e.g., at 12a) that is coaxially connected to an output shaft (paragraph 0030) of the gearbox; an output end part (e.g., at 12b) that is connected to the final reduction gear; a constant velocity joint (62a, 62b) that is disposed at an intersection angle greater than zero and equal to or less than a predetermined upper limit (implicit); and a slide part (e.g., 13) that allows relative movement of the final reduction gear with respect to the gearbox in the front-rear direction. The limitations of claim 2 do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art, 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. MPEP §2144.05. The gearbox would be disposed in a rearward inclined state when the vehicle is traveling forward up a slope, at least compared to the state of the gearbox with the vehicle is traveling forward on a level surface. Dutkiewicz does not explicitly teach that the output end part is coaxially connected to an input shaft of the final reduction gear, since Dutkiewicz does not explicitly teach an input shaft of the final reduction gear. Takeda teaches a propeller shaft 7 comprising an output end part that is coaxially connected to an input shaft 34 of a final reduction gear (at 8). Takeda also teaches a gearbox 6 that is disposed in a rearward inclined state (Fig. 8; paragraph 0054). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make an invention as taught by Dutkiewicz with the output end part coaxially connected to an input shaft of the final reduction gear, according to the known technique taught by Takeda, in order to transfer force from the propeller shaft to the wheels (e.g., via a pinion - see paragraph 0015 of Dutkiewicz). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient a gearbox as in Dutkiewicz such that it is disposed in a rearward inclined state, according to the known technique taught by Takeda, so that “when the first output shaft 21 and the second output shaft 22 are inclined in the forward tilting direction due to the load acting on the chassis frame 1, the axes of the shift output shafts 30 and 50 and the axis of the differential input shaft 34 approach each other in parallel. Therefore, it is possible to easily suppress the rotational fluctuation of the power transmission path, and it is possible to further improve the vibration characteristics of the drive device when the vehicle 10 is traveling (when the load is applied to the chassis frame 1). This configuration is suitable for use in a vehicle 0 in which a large load can act on the chassis frame 1 as compared with a passenger car such as a truck, a dump truck, a concrete mixer truck, a feed carrier, a tank truck, and a garbage truck” (paragraph 0054 of Takeda). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to orient a gearbox as in Dutkiewicz such that it is disposed in a rearward inclined state, according to the known technique taught by Takeda, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(C). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz et al. (US 2021/0188031 A1) in view of Takeda (WO 2021/145100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and, alternatively, further in view of Lie (US 6,193,007 B1). The recitation of relative dimensions in claim 3 does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). Alternatively, Lie teaches a similar drive system wherein a distance between a gearbox 16 and a final reduction gear 20 in a front-rear direction is 500 mm or less (column 2, line 63 – column 3, line 3), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a propeller shaft as taught by Dutkiewicz such that a distance between the gearbox and the final reduction gear in a front-rear direction is 500 mm or less, according to the known technique taught by Lie, in order to use the drive shaft for a vehicle in which a gearbox and a final reduction gear are relatively close together (as in Lie). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutkiewicz et al. (US 2021/0188031 A1) in view of Takeda (WO 2021/145100 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nemoto et al. (JP 2009-214818 A). In Dutkiewicz, the constant velocity joint is a double Cardan joint or a Rzeppa joint (Fig. 3). Neither Dutkiewicz nor Takeda teaches the limitations of claim 5. Nemoto teaches a drive system wherein an input end part 154a is connected to an output shaft 54 of a gearbox 15 by a spline 54a so as to be axially slidable (paragraph 0063), and the input end part forms a slide part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a slide part as taught by Nemoto for a slide part as taught by Dutkiewicz in order to similarly allow for variations in the relative positions of the gearbox and the final reduction gear. MPEP §2143(I)(B). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614