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 1-5 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 1 recites the phrase “assuming that” in lines 8 and 22. This renders the claim indefinite, as any limitation that follows in not positively recited as a feature of the invention. It is suggested that the phrase “assuming that” be replaced with –wherein--, or just remove the phrase.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one of the pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B)” in line 22. Only one pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B) has been disclosed. It is suggested Applicant amended the claims to state --one bevel gear, of the pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B)--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one of the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B)” in liens 23-24. Only one pair of output shafts (9A, 9B) has been disclosed. It is suggested Applicant amended the claim to state –one output shaft, of the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B)--.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by AKIRA et al. (JP 2021107737 A).
Regarding claim 1, AKIRA discloses a vehicle drive device comprising: an input member (20) drivingly connected to a driving force source (2); a pair of output shafts (9A, 9B) drivingly connected to wheels (W); a speed reducer (4) configured to reduce a speed of rotation of the input member (20); and a differential gear device (5) configured to distribute the rotation of the input member (20) transmitted via the speed reducer to the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B), wherein an axial direction (along “X”) is a direction along an output rotation axis (X) that is a rotation axis of the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B), a first axial side is one side in the axial direction, a second axial side is the other side in the axial direction, a radial direction is a direction orthogonal to the output rotation axis, and a circumferential direction is a direction about the output rotation axis, the differential gear device includes a differential case (50) and a differential gear mechanism housed in the differential case (50), the differential gear mechanism includes a shaft member (51) formed so as to extend along the radial direction, a plurality of first bevel gears (52) rotatably supported by the shaft member (51) and disposed separately in the circumferential direction, and a pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B) disposed separately on both sides of the shaft member (51) in the axial direction and meshing with the plurality of first bevel gears (52), the pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B) is connected to the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B) so as to rotate integrally with the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B), and assuming that one of the pair of second bevel gears (54A, 54B) that is disposed on the second axial side with respect to the shaft member (51) is a specific bevel gear (54B) and one of the pair of output shafts (9A, 9B) that rotates integrally with the specific bevel gear (54B) is a specific output shaft (9B), an engaging portion (splines on shaft 9B, which connect it with gear 54B, Fig. 4) provided on the specific output shaft (9B) and an engaged portion (splines on gear 54B, which connect it with shaft 9b, Fig. 4) provided on the specific bevel gear (54B) engage with each other so as to restrict relative movement in the circumferential direction and the radial direction between the specific output shaft (9B) and the specific bevel gear (54B), and the specific bevel gear (54B) is supported on the differential case (50) in the axial direction (via 55) and is not supported on the differential case (50) in the radial direction.
Regarding claim 2, AKIRA discloses the specific bevel gear (54B) includes a bevel tooth portion that meshes with the plurality of first bevel gears (52), a bevel tooth support portion that is formed integrally with the bevel tooth portion and supports the bevel tooth portion, and a tubular shaft portion (540) that is formed in a tubular shape extending from the bevel tooth support portion to the second axial side; the differential case (50) includes a differential case (50) tubular portion (72) that is formed in a tubular shape and is disposed so as to cover the tubular shaft portion from an outer side in the radial direction; and a first clearance (@721) that is a clearance in the radial direction is provided between an outer peripheral surface of the tubular shaft portion and an inner peripheral surface of the differential case (50) tubular portion.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by AKIRA et al. (JP 2021107737 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of MORI (US 10,221,928).
Regarding claim 3, AKIRA discloses a second clearance that is a clearance in the radial direction is provided between a tooth surface of each of the plurality of first bevel gears (52) and a tooth surface of the specific bevel gear (54B), see Fig. 10.
AKIRA does not disclose the first clearance is larger than the second clearance.
MORI shows in Fig. 7, the clearance between the bevel gear (S, on the left) and the differential case (Cb) is great than the clearance between the bevel gear (S, on the right) and the differential case. This establishes the clearance as a variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the first clearance be larger than the second clearance, as the flow of lubricant and the backlash of the gearing is determined by the clearance. Since MORI has established the first clearance as being a variable, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention been obvious to modified the clearance to obtain the prober flow for the required lubrication/ cooling of the transmission components.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by AKIRA et al. (JP 2021107737 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of MUELLER (US 3,040,600).
Regarding claim 4, AKIRA discloses an outer case (14) that houses the input member, the speed reducer, and the differential gear device, wherein the outer case further includes an outer case tubular portion (145) that is formed in a tubular shape and is disposed so as to cover the tubular shaft portion (540) from the outer side in the radial direction, a seal member (RS) is provided to provide an oil-tight seal between the outer peripheral surface of the tubular shaft portion (540) and an inner peripheral surface of the outer case tubular portion (145. Fig. 4).
AKRIA does not disclose the seal member is disposed so as to overlap the engaged portion in a radial view along the radial direction.
MUELLER teaches a bevel gear differential wherein the bevel gear (24) has splines (see Fig. 1) that run the entire axial length of the gear.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the engagement area of the bevel gear of AKRIA such that it would be the entire axial length of the gear, as taught by MUELLER, to increase the torque carrying capacity of the drive device.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of AKIRA-MUELLER discloses an outer case (14) that houses the input member, the speed reducer, and the differential gear device, wherein the outer case includes an outer support portion (145) disposed on the outer side in the radial direction with respect to the differential case tubular portion, and the outer support portion, the differential case tubular portion, and the engaged portion are disposed so as to overlap each other in a radial view along the radial direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK D. KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7951. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: From 5:30am-1:30pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/DEREK D KNIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights