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
Claims 6-9 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. While the specification discloses a vehicle unit wherein “the second gear, the shaft, the first output end, and the second output end are arranged on a second axis parallel to the first axis” (Fig. 4), or “the rotary electric machine and the shaft have a portion configured to overlap when viewed in a radial direction of the second axis” (Fig. 5), the application does not reasonably provide support for a vehicle unit that satisfies both limitations simultaneously.
Applicant states in their response filed on 6/26/2026 that figure 5 depicts an embodiment that enables the limitations of “the rotary electric machine and the shaft have a portion configured to overlap when viewed in a radial direction of the second axis”. And figure 4 depicts an embodiment that enables the limitation “the second gear, the shaft, the first output end, and the second output end are arranged on a second axis parallel to the first axis”. These two embodiments are mutually exclusive and are not part of the same invention. It appears that claims 6 and 8 are intermixing mutually exclusive embodiments. Neither claim is generic to the two embodiments.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the invention does not have the rotary electric machine and the shaft have a portion configured to overlap in a radial direction of the second axis, as required by the embodiment disclosed in Fig. 5 of the application.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SAKURADA et al. (US 20210001713 A1).
Regarding claim 6, SAKURADA, as best understood by the Examiner, discloses a vehicle equipped with a unit, the unit including: a rotary electric machine (MOT); a first gear (21) connected downstream of the rotary electric machine; a second gear (22) configured to mesh with the first gear; and a shaft (50L, 50R) connected downstream of the second gear, wherein the shaft includes a first output end (50L) and a second output end (50R), the rotary electric machine and the first gear are arranged on a first axis, the second gear( 22), the shaft, the first output end (50L), and the second output end (50R) are arranged on a second axis parallel to the first axis (see Fig. 2), the second gear (22) is disposed to be sandwiched between the first output end and the second output end, the vehicle includes a driving wheel (Fig. 5) connected downstream of the first output end and an auxiliary machine (25) connected downstream of the second output end, and the second gear is located on a first output end side.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the Examiner, SAKURADA discloses the first gear and the second gear constitute a speed reduction mechanism.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood by the Examiner, SAKURADA discloses as best understood by the Examiner, discloses a vehicle manufacturing method for manufacturing a vehicle (Fig. 5) which includes a first power transmission mechanism, a second power transmission mechanism, a driving wheel connected downstream of the first power transmission mechanism, and an auxiliary machine connected downstream of the second power transmission mechanism, and in which an input portion of the first power transmission mechanism and an input portion of the second power transmission mechanism are coaxially arranged, the vehicle manufacturing method comprising: a first step of preparing a unit which includes a rotary electric machine, a first gear connected downstream of the rotary electric machine, a second gear configured to mesh with the first gear, and a shaft connected downstream of the second gear, and in which the shaft includes a first output end and a second output end, the rotary electric machine and the first gear are arranged on a first axis, the second gear, the shaft, the first output end, and the second output end are arranged on a second axis parallel to the first axis, and the second gear is disposed to be sandwiched between the first output end and the second output end; and a second step of mounting the unit such that the first output end is connected to the input portion of the first power transmission mechanism and the second output end is connected to the input portion of the second power transmission mechanism.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKURADA et al. (US 20210001713 A1) as applied to claims 6-8 above, and further in view of ASELAGE et al. (US 9,829,099).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood by the Examiner, SAKURADA discloses a vehicle manufacturing method, the vehicle is equipped with an internal combustion engine (ENG), but does not disclose the internal combustion engine connected to the input portion of the first power transmission mechanism and the input portion of the second power transmission mechanism, the method further comprising: a step of removing the internal combustion engine at least before the second step.
ASELAGE teaches in col. 3, lines 35-37 removing the internal combustion engine from the vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the manufacturing method of SAKURADA to include the step of removing the internal combustion engine, as taught by ASELAGE, to allow for other vehicle configurations (ASELAGE, col. 3, line 34).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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