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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"vibration isolating members " in claim 5. Because (A) “members” denote the placeholder/nonce term, (B) “vibration isolating” denotes the function, and (C) no structure is recited to perform the recited function of isolating from vibrations. In effect, the phrase is similar to “means for isolating from vibrations”, thus invoking 35 USC 112f.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Considering the details outlined in the specification (Fig. 10; paragraph 0051) the limitation, “vibration isolating members” is interpreted as, e.g., “annular tube-like structures comprised of rubber”, or equivalent.
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 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0029811 A1 to Stålberg et al (hereinafter Stålberg).
Regarding Claim 1, Stålberg discloses an electric transmission comprising:
[a work electric motor (30);
a travel electric motor (20)] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0048); and
[a power combining mechanism (6) that combines output of both of the electric motors] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0058, torque generated by [the work electric motor] may only be transferred…via [the power combining mechanism]…the different gear ratios provided within…are used for transferring torque generated by both electric machines 20, 30 to the…output…), wherein,
[at least the output of the travel electric motor is variably controlled to change the output of the power combining mechanism] (Fig. 2; paragraph 0049),
[both of the electric motors and the power combining mechanism are assembled in a common casing (13) to form a unit (1)] (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0057, 0058), and
[the output of the work electric motor and the output of the power combining mechanism are respectively taken out from the casing] (Fig. 2, paragraph 0048, and paragraph 0050 disclose that the output of the work electric motor is taken out from the casing via element 5; Fig. 2 and paragraph 0049 discloses output of the power combining mechanism is taken out from the casing via element 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Stålberg discloses the electric transmission according to claim 1, wherein [a work-machine drive shaft (3) to which the output of the work electric motor is transmitted and a travel drive shaft (4) to which the output of the power combining mechanism is transmitted are supported in parallel by the casing and protrude outward in a same direction] (Fig. 2; paragraphs 0048 – 0049).
Regarding Claim 4, Stålberg discloses the electric transmission according to claim 1, wherein [the power combining mechanism is structured such that transmission output of the power combining mechanism is maximized when the output of the travel electric motor is maximized in one direction, and transmission output of the power combining mechanism is minimized or zero when the output of the travel electric motor is maximized in another direction] (paragraph 0006, …an electric powertrain in which torque generated by two electric machines may be efficiently used for a variety of applications with different requirements on driving torque; paragraph 0018, the gear ratio used for torque transfer between [the travel electric motor] and the propulsion axle…may be selected depending on the application; 0062, The electric machines may be configured to be drivable in both directions; paragraphs 0003 and 0021 further describe efficient output of the power combining mechanism operatively coupled to the travel electric motor).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stålberg in view of DE 102020119290 A1 to Fietkau.
Regarding Claim 3, Stålberg does not appear to explicitly disclose rated power output of electric motors.
Fietkau discloses [an electric transmission (19), wherein rated power output of a work electric motor (4) is greater than rated power output of a travel electric motor (7)] (Fig. 5; paragraph 0036, [the work electric motor] … is equipped with a higher rated power than [the travel electric motor 7]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electric transmissions, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the teachings of Fietkau to substitute the electric motors of Stålberg with the electric motors of Fietkau because the results would have been predictable and one so skilled would expect to achieve at least the advantage that Fietkau describes in paragraph 0012:
the use of different electric motors improves the possibility of being able to operate at least one of the electric motors with high power and thus high efficiency in different operating states.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stålberg in view of US 2015/0028180 A1 to Patel et al (hereinafter Patel).
Regarding Claim 5, Stålberg discloses the electric transmission according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a work vehicle having a machine body frame supporting the electric transmission having vibration isolating mounts.
Patel discloses [a work vehicle (10)] (Fig. 1; paragraph 0028) comprising:
a machine body frame (12)] (Fig.1; paragraph 0046),
wherein [a casing (16) of a power train element (14) is structured to be supported on a machine body frame (12) in a vibration-proof manner] (Figs. 5A, 5B; paragraph 0003) via [a pair of vibration isolating members (100) on at least right and left outer side portions of the casing] (Figs. 1, 3A; paragraphs 0028, 0032).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art of electric transmissions, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have structured the electric transmission of Stålberg using the teachings of Patel such that the electric transmission of Stålberg is structured to be supported on the machine body frame of the work vehicle of Patel in the vibration-proof manner via the pair of vibration isolating members of Patel on at least right and left outer side portions of Stålberg’s casing. Doing so would not have been beyond the skill of an ordinary artisan and one so skilled would have appreciated at least one of the advantages that Patel mentions in paragraph 0003: isolating frame movement and stresses from the engine, sound and vibration isolation, aligning the engine relative to the frame and drivetrain components, and/or limiting movement of the engine relative to the frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler Ferguson whose telephone number is (571)272-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at 571-272-6265. 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.
/Tyler Ferguson/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights