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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Line 5. Replacing “a vehicle” with “the electric vehicle” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Lines 2-3. Removing the text of Lines 2-3 is suggested given that the limitation recited in this text is included in Claim 1, Lines 4-5. Alternatively, replacing the text “the electric vehicle includes a side member disposed lateral to the drive unit along a front-rear direction of a vehicle” with the text “the side member is disposed lateral to the drive unit along the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle” is suggested.
wording in Lines 4-5. Replacing “one end of the mount bracket is fastened to the upper surface of the upright wall, and the other end of the mount bracket is fastened to the side member” with “a first end of the mount bracket is fastened to the upper surface of the upright wall, and a second end of the mount bracket is fastened to the side member” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 2. Replacing “the other end” with “the second end” is suggested. (See Objection 3.b. above.)
wording in Line 3. Replacing “the vehicle front-rear direction” with “the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle” is suggested.
wording in Line 5. Replacing “the vehicle front-rear direction” with “the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle” is suggested.
wording in Lines 6-8. Replacing “an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of second fastening points on the side member is larger than an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of first fastening points on the upright wall.” with “an interval in the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle between each second fastening point of the plurality of second fastening points on the side member is larger than an interval in the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle between each first fastening point of the plurality of first fastening points on the upright wall.” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Lines 2-3. Replacing “the first fastening points are disposed at positions higher than the second fastening points in an upper-lower direction” with “all first fastening points of the plurality of first fastening points are disposed at positions higher than all second fastening points of the plurality of second fastening points in an upper-lower direction” is suggested.
wording in Lines 4-5. Replacing “at least one of the second fastening points is disposed in front of the first fastening points in the vehicle front-rear direction.” with “at least one second fastening point of the plurality of second fastening points is disposed in front of the plurality of first fastening points in the front-rear direction of the electric vehicle.” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-14 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 8 recites the limitation “the motor housing includes an upright wall that is upright above the motor housing”. The meaning of this limitation cannot be discerned; the limitation effectively recites the motor housing being above itself. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “the motor housing includes an upright wall that is upright above the motor housing” will be construed as “the motor housing includes an upright wall that comprises a top surface of the motor housing”.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitations:
“a heavy electric component” in Lines 2, 3, 6, and 7. The term “heavy” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavy” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the term “electric component” has been rendered indefinite.
“heavy electric component is accommodated in the inverter housing” in Line 3 and “heavy electric component is accommodated in the recessed portion below the inverter housing” in Lines 6-7. These limitations are mutually exclusive. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “accommodated in the recessed portion below the inverter housing” will be construed as “accommodated in a lower portion of the inverter housing which is accommodated in the recessed portion”.
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.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ajisaka (JP 2019188884 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, Ajisaka teaches a drive unit for an electric vehicle [Ajisaka Abstract: “a drive unit 18 in which a fuel cell stack disposed in a power unit chamber in the front of the vehicle and a travel motor driven with the electric energy generated in the fuel cell stack”], comprising: a drive unit including a rotary electric machine disposed in a motor room of the electric vehicle and an inverter unit electrically connected to the rotary electric machine [Ajisaka Paragraph 0032: “the driving motor 32, the inverter 34, and the like are integrated”]; and a mount bracket configured to support the drive unit on a side member disposed lateral to the drive unit along a front-rear direction of a vehicle in the motor room [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 42A (mount bracket) and 14A (side member)], wherein the rotary electric machine includes a motor housing [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 32 and 33], the inverter unit is placed on an upper surface of the motor housing and fixed to the motor housing at a fixing point disposed at an outer edge portion of the inverter unit [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 44 (inverter) and 32 (motor housing)], the motor housing includes an upright wall that is upright above the motor housing on an outer side of the fixing point of the inverter unit in a vehicle width direction [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 32 (motor housing) and 33 (upright wall); Ajisaka Paragraph 0020: “As shown in FIG. 1, a substantially rectangular mounting portion 33 is formed on the outer side (left side) of the upper portion of the traveling motor 32 in the vehicle width direction.”], one end of the mount bracket is fixed to an upper surface of the upright wall [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 42A (mount bracket) and 33 (upright wall)], and the upright wall is interposed between the inverter unit and the side member [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 33 (upright wall), 34 (inverter unit), and 14A (side member)].
Regarding Claim 9, Ajisaka teaches the drive unit for an electric vehicle according to claim 8, wherein the electric vehicle includes a side member disposed lateral to the drive unit along a front-rear direction of a vehicle, and one end of the mount bracket is fastened to the upper surface of the upright wall, and the other end of the mount bracket is fastened to the side member located at an outer side of the upright wall in the vehicle width direction [Ajisaka Figs. 1 and 2, Reference Characters 42A (mount bracket) and 14A (side member)].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajisaka (JP 2019188884 A) in view of Nakamatsu et al. (WO 2020179217 A1) (hereinafter “Nakamatsu”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 10, Ajisaka teaches an inverter unit and a rotary electric machine but does not explicitly teach a bus bar. Nakamatsu teaches the drive unit for an electric vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the inverter unit and the rotary electric machine are electrically connected to each other via a bus bar, and the bus bar is disposed below, in an upper-lower direction, a fastening point at which the mount bracket is fastened to the upright wall [Nakamatsu Figs. 6, 10, and 11, Reference Character 70]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drive unit of Ajisaka to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a busbar fastened to the upright wall of the motor housing in view of Nakamatsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ajisaka and Nakamatsu because this would have achieved the desirable result of simplifying the assembly process of the motor unit, as recognized by Nakamatsu [Nakamatsu Paragraph 0052:“the first bus bar unit 70, the sensor connector 73, and the first connector 71 can be attached to the housing body 60 from one direction, and the assembling process can be simplified. In addition, the assembling direction of the first bus bar unit 70, the sensor connector 73, and the first connector 71 is also the same as the assembling direction of the closing portion 61, so that the assembly process of the motor unit 1 can be further simplified.”].
Regarding Claim 11, Ajisaka teaches a motor housing but does not explicitly teach a bus bar. Nakamatsu teaches the drive unit for an electric vehicle according to claim 10, wherein the motor housing is interposed between the bus bar and the side member in the vehicle width direction [Nakamatsu Figs. 6, 8, 10, and 5, wherein Fig. 6 illustrates the bus bar (Reference Character 70) without the outer motor housing in place, Fig. 8 shows the drive unit assembly, Fig. 10 illustrates the bus bar in relationship to hole 60bg, inboard of surface 60bc, and Fig. 5 illustrates motor housing component Reference Character 61 that is interposed between surface 60c and a side member, which would be located further outward, in a vehicle width direction, of Reference Character 61]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the drive unit of Ajisaka to interpose, with a reasonable expectation of success, a motor housing between a bus bar and a side member, in view of Nakamatsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ajisaka and Nakamatsu because this would have achieved the desirable result of reinforcing and rigidizing the housing, as recognized by Nakamatsu [Nakamatsu Paragraph 0070: “The inverter accommodating portion 6c is reinforced and rigidized by fastening the closing portion 61. That is, according to the present embodiment, the effect of suppressing the vibration of the inverter housing portion 6c can be further enhanced.”].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajisaka (JP 2019188884 A) in view of Nakamatsu et al. (WO 2020179217 A1) (hereinafter “Nakamatsu”) and further in view of Nagaya et al. (WO 2021172328 A1) (hereinafter “Nagaya”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Ajisaka and Nakamatsu teaches an inverter unit and a motor housing but does not teach a recessed portion on an upper surface of the motor housing. Nagaya teaches the drive unit for an electric vehicle according to claim 11, wherein the inverter unit includes an inverter housing and a heavy electric component, and the heavy electric component is accommodated in the inverter housing, the motor housing has a recessed portion recessed in an upper surface of the motor housing, and the heavy electric component is accommodated in the recessed portion below the inverter housing such that a part of the heavy electric component is disposed to protrude downward from a bottom portion of the inverter housing [Nagaya Fig. 7, Reference Characters 33 (inverter housing), 50 (electric component), and 20 (motor housing), and Fig. 9, unnumbered recessed portion below Reference Character 30 (inverter housing); Nagaya Paragraph 0035: “The integrally formed case 1 includes a partition wall 11 for partitioning the first storage chamber 20 and the second storage chamber 30, and the terminal block 50 has a partition wall in which the arrangement area in the axial direction L overlaps with the rotary electric machine MG. 11 is arranged so as to penetrate the output member OUT in the radial direction R (see FIG. 7).”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the inverter unit of the combination of Ajisaka and Nakamatsu to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a recessed portion in view of Nagaya. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ajisaka, Nakamatsu, and Nagaya because this would have achieved the desirable results of higher rigidity of the housing, lower weight of the housing, and greater design freedom in the arrangement of shafts A1 and A2, as recognized by Nagaya [Nagaya Paragraph 0036: “when the case 1 is integrally formed by having the first accommodation chamber 20 and the second accommodation chamber 30 inside, the first accommodation chamber 20 and the second accommodation chamber 30 formed separately are formed. It is possible to give the case 1 a higher rigidity than the case where the case 1 is assembled with and. Further, as compared with the case where the two storage chambers are formed separately, the partition wall 11 for partitioning the first storage chamber 20 and the second storage chamber 30 can be shared, so that the case 1 can be reduced in weight. Further, in the present embodiment, since the rotary electric machine MG, which is the driving force source of the wheel W, and the output member OUT, which is driven and connected to the wheel W, are both housed in the first storage chamber 20. It is also easy to arrange the shaft A1 close to the shaft A2.”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 13, Ajisaka teaches a drive unit comprising a mount bracket fastened to a side member by a plurality of second fastening points, but does not teach relative interval sizes between first fastening points and second fastening points.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the drive unit for an electric vehicle according to claim 9, wherein the other end of the mount bracket is fastened to the side member by a plurality of second fastening points in the vehicle front-rear direction, the one end of the mount bracket is fastened to the upright wall by a plurality of first fastening points in the vehicle front-rear direction, and an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of second fastening points on the side member is larger than an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of first fastening points on the upright wall. The closest reference, Ajisaka, teaches that the mount bracket is fastened to the side member by a plurality of second fastening points in the vehicle front-rear direction and also fastened to the upright wall [Ajisaka Fig. 1, Reference Character 42A], but does not teach that an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of second fastening points on the side member is larger than an interval in the front-rear direction between the plurality of first fastening points on the upright wall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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 II, can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights