DETAILED ACTION
The following is a response to the amendment filed 10/29/2025 which has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-14 and 22-30 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 3 and 15-21 are cancelled and claims 22-30 are new.
-The 112(f) claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to applicant amending the claim limitations accordingly and cancelling claims 15 and 21.
-The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant cancelling claims 17-21.
-The 102 rejection has been withdrawn due to applicant cancelling claims 15-18.
-The 103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amending claim 1 with limitations not disclosed by the Pitcel ‘722 prior art and cancelling claims 15-21.
-Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4-14 have been considered, however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s change of scope in at least claims 1 and 12 which broadened the electric deck motor and clutch bearing limitations previously recited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 4-14 and 22-30 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.
-Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 25, 28 and 30 recites the limitation “conductor” replacing the previously recited term “connector” in at least claims 1, 5, 11 and 25. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe a “conductor” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 1, 6, 7, 28 and 30 recites the limitations “a first race and a second race” replacing the previously recited terms “an inner race and an outer race” in at least claims 1, 6 and 7. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the clutch bearing races broadly as just “first race and second race” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 1 and 12 recites the limitation “an internal combustion engine that connects to and selectively drives rotation of the pulley”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the engine as “selectively” driving the pulley as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal combustion engine selectively drives rotation of the pulley and second race at a second rotational speed”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the engine as “selectively” driving the pulley and second race at a second rotational speed as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 9 and 28 recites the limitation “a housing positioned beneath the pulley relative to a mounting deck” and “a housing positioned below a pulley and mounted to a mounting deck”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe “a housing positioned below a pulley relative to and mounted to a mounting deck” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the output shaft extends below the mounting deck”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe “a portion of the motor output shaft extending below the deck” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 25 and 30 recite the limitations “…….the conductor conveys excess power to the electrical power source” and “…….the conductor conveys excess power from the electric motor to the electric power source”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe the power conveyed as “excess” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
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, 4-14 and 22-30 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.
-Claims 1, 5, 11, 12, 25, 28 and 30 recites the limitation “conductor” replacing the previously recited term “connector” in at least claims 1, 5, 11 and 25. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe a “conductor” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 1, 6, 7, 28 and 30 recites the limitations “a first race and a second race” replacing the previously recited terms “an inner race and an outer race” in at least claims 1, 6 and 7. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the clutch bearing races broadly as just “first race and second race” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 1 and 12 recites the limitation “an internal combustion engine that connects to and selectively drives rotation of the pulley”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the engine as “selectively” driving the pulley as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal combustion engine selectively drives rotation of the pulley and second race at a second rotational speed”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t describe the engine as “selectively” driving the pulley and second race at a second rotational speed as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claims 9 and 28 recites the limitation “a housing positioned beneath the pulley relative to a mounting deck” and “a housing positioned below a pulley and mounted to a mounting deck”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe “a housing positioned below a pulley relative to and mounted to a mounting deck” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein at least a portion of the output shaft extends below the mounting deck”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe “a portion of the motor output shaft extending below the deck” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
-Claim 24 recites the limitation “the electric deck motor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to claims 1 and 5 from which this claim depends from not reciting (introducing) this limitation.
-Claims 25 and 30 recite the limitations “…….the conductor conveys excess power to the electrical power source” and “…….the conductor conveys excess power from the electric motor to the electric power source”. However, the original disclosure as filed doesn’t seem to describe the power conveyed as “excess” as currently recited, please clarify where support for this limitation can be found in the original disclosure.
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) 12, 13, 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vitale et al 20060063638. As to claim 12, Vitale discloses a hybrid drive system for a utility vehicle (the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations; therefore, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02) comprising: an electrical power source (36); an electric motor (32) having an output shaft (via 6) and a conductor ([0029]) configured to alternatively receive power from or convey power to the electrical power source; a clutch mechanism (8) having a ratchet ([0025] describes that weights 21 “frictionally contact” surface of 25) that is joined to and rotates with the output shaft at a first rotational speed ([0037]-[0045]) and at least one pawl (21) that is joined to and rotates with a pulley at a second rotational speed ([0037]-[0045]); and an internal combustion engine (3) that connects to and selectively drives rotation of the pulley (via 4, 10).
As to claim 13, wherein, when the pulley rotates at a predetermined second rotational speed, the at least one pawl pivots about a pivot pin causing the at least one pawl to contact the ratchet ([0025]).
As to claim 26, wherein, when the at least one pawl contacts the ratchet, the clutch mechanism is in an engaged state such that the first rotational speed equals the second rotational speed ([0044]).
As to claim 27, further comprising at least one spring (22) configured to bias the at least one pawl toward a disengaged position at which the at least one pawl does not contact the ratchet.
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) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liau 6109127 (previously cited) in view of Vitale et al 20060063638. As to claim 1, Liau discloses a hybrid drive system for a utility vehicle (the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations; therefore, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction, see MPEP 2111.02) comprising: an electric motor (300) having an output shaft (301); a clutch bearing (50’) comprising: a first race (51’) that is joined to and rotates with a proximal end of the output shaft, and a second race (52’) that is joined to and rotates with a pulley (302); and an internal combustion engine (200) that connects to and selectively (via 50) drives rotation of the pulley; wherein: the output shaft and first race rotate at a first rotational speed; the internal combustion engine selectively drives rotation of the pulley and second race at a second rotational speed; and when the second rotational speed reaches the first rotational speed, the clutch bearing engages such that the first race is driven by the second race (column 3, line 42 to column 4, line 21). However, Liau doesn’t disclose an electrical power source wherein the output shaft and a conductor configured to alternatively receive power from or convey power to the power source and the power source providing power to the motor as recited.
Vitale discloses a hybrid drive system and shows that it is well known in the art to provide an electrical power source (36); an electric motor (32) having an output shaft (via 6) and a conductor ([0029]) configured to alternatively receive power from or convey power to the electrical power source.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Liau with an electric power source and a conductor in view of Vitale to provide on demand energy input/output between power sources as needed which increases operating efficiency of system.
As to claim 5, wherein, when the clutch bearing is engaged and belt power applied to the pulley exceeds load applied to the output shaft, the conductor conveys power from the electric motor to the electrical power source (via 8 in Vitale; [0040]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al 20220408638 in view of Pitcel 20140013722 and Liau 6109127 (both previously cited). As to claim 28, Ito discloses a hybrid drive system for a utility vehicle comprising: an electrical power source (72a); an electric motor (4) comprising an output shaft (41; [0026]); a conductor (72) configured to alternatively convey power to the electric motor from the electric power source or convey power from the electric motor to the electrical power source; a housing (42) containing the electric motor, the housing positioned below a pulley (24) and mounted to a mounting deck (40); a receiving hole in the mounting deck through which the output shaft extends ([0026] describes 41 vertically oriented on mounted base 40); and an internal combustion engine ([0054]) that connects to the pulley via a belt (via continuously variable transmission device). Although Ito describes a bearing inside motor housing ([0026]) which would be between the output shaft (41) and pulley (24), Ito doesn’t disclose a clutch bearing comprising: a first race that is joined to and rotates with the output shaft; and a second race that is joined to and rotates with the pulley as recited.
Pitcel discloses a hybrid drive system for a utility vehicle comprising: an electrical power source (436, 438); a combustion power source (430); an electric deck motor (432) having an output shaft (462) and a conductor (connection between 432 and 436 in Figure 12; [0077], lines 1-3) configured to alternatively receive power from or send power to the electrical power source; and a clutch (433) joined to and rotates with the output shaft and is joined to and rotates with a pulley (via 464, 614); wherein the pulley is connected to and driven by the combustion power source (via 464). Pitcel shows that it is well known in the art to have the clutch be any of a freewheeling, slipper or electric type clutch, it doesn’t explicitly disclose the clutch being a bearing type clutch having an first and second race as recited.
Liau discloses a hybrid vehicle drive system for a vehicle and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a clutch bearing (50’) having a first race (51’) joined to and rotating with an output shaft (301) of an electric motor (300) and an second race (52’) joined to and rotating with a pulley (302).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the motor bearing of Ito with a clutch arrangement in view of Pitcel and a clutch bearing arrangement in view of Liau to prevent reverse rotation power towards the motor during forward operation of vehicle which avoids energy losses causing damage and wear to motor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-11, 14, 22-25, 29 and 30 (via prior art purposes only) 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. Due to 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, reasons for allowance of claims 9 and 24 will not be given at this time. Further, reasons for allowance will not be given at this time for claims 4, 6-8, 14, 29 and 30 due to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 12 and 28 from which those claims depend from.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
-In particular, applicant’s amendment to claims 1 and 12 removing the term “deck” which changes the scope of claim outside of a “electric deck motor” to just an “electric motor”.
-In particular, applicant’s amendment to claim 1 changing the inner and outer races to a broad recitation of “first and second races” in which a first race could be considered an inner or outer race and a second race could be considered an inner or outer race.
-Also, claim 28 as currently written doesn’t recite the limitations as exactly written in previously recited claim 9 in which the examiner indicated as allowable.
Examiner suggest applicant amend claims back to how each was previously recited to at least overcome the 112(a) rejections.
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 TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 6, 2026