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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the amendment/remarks filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1-15, 17-20 are pending; claim 16 is canceled; claim 19 has been amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
The prior rejection of claims 1-15, 17-18, 20 under 35 112(b) have been considered and persuasive in light of the remarks on page 6.
The prior rejection of claims 19 under 35 USC 112 (b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to claim 19.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the independent claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
1-Applicant argued “Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill, in possession of Etchason and Warth, and without the hindsight benefit of using Applicant's specification as a roadmap, would not arrive at the specific arrangement of claim 1, arranged as claimed. In particular, Etchason discloses a third planetary gear set P3 comprising a sun gear 326, a ring gear 330 and a planet carrier 328. The planet carrier 328 of the third planetary gear set P3 is rotationally connected to the output shaft 304. The Examiner interprets the third planetary gear set P3 of Etchason as corresponding to the first planetary gear set of claim 1.
Meanwhile, Etchason discloses a fourth planetary gear set P4 comprising a sun gear 332, a ring gear 336 and a planet carrier 334. The planet carrier 334 is connectable to a fixed member via a clutch C6. The Office Action interprets the fourth planetary gear set P4 of Etchason as corresponding to the crawler unit of claim 1.
Accordingly, under the Office Action's interpretation, P3 corresponds to the first
planetary gear set, P4 corresponds to the crawler unit, and the clutch C6 corresponds to the first clutch. However, Etchason describes in paragraph 0051: "With the P4 carrier being held, the P4 sun gear 332 drives the P4 ring gear 336. The P4 ring gear 336 rotates in a direction opposite the P4 sun gear 332 and...". Accordingly, Etchason describes an arrangement in which the clutch C6, i.e. allegedly corresponding to the first clutch of claim 1, is connected to rotate the sun gear 332 and ring gear 336 of the fourth planetary gear set P4, i.e. allegedly corresponding to the crawler unit of claim 1, to rotate in opposite directions. Etchason therefore fails to describe a clutch that, when engaged, causes a ring gear and a sun gear of a first planetary gear set as defined by claim 1 to rotate in opposite directions. To the contrary, even if the Office Action's interpretation were valid, a point Applicant does not concede, Etchason would describe a clutch that causes a ring gear and a sun gear of a crawler unit to rotate in opposite directions. Warth is relied on only for the alleged disclosure of "an input shaft drivingly connectable to an electric traction motor, a first gear stage comprising a first gear wheel and a second gear wheel drivingly connected to each other, the first gear wheel being rotationally connected to the input shaft, wherein a first sun gear and the first ring gear are rotationally connectable to the second gear wheel of the first gear stage." Thus, even if the proposed combination of Etchason and Warth were proper, a point Applicant does not concede, the proposed combination of Warth with Etchason would still fail to cure the underlying deficiencies of Etchason.”
1-In response to the argument above, examiner respectfully disagrees because applicant incorrectly asserts that claim 1 requires a clutch that causes a sun and ring gear of first planetary gearset to rotate in opposite direction. In fact, claim recites a first clutch is configured to cause the first ring gear to rotate in an opposite direction compared to a rotational direction of the first planet carrier.
Further, applicant’s specification Fig.3 and ¶[0071] describes a crawler configuration in which a first clutch selectively connects to a crawler planetary carrier to stationary member; thereby causing the ring gear to rotate in opposite direct relative to the first planet carrier during crawler gear state. This operation is the same as the arrangement disclosed in Fig.3 of Etchason. Specifically, Etchason (Fig.3 and ¶0051) discloses when C6 is engaged (F1 range-¶[0042]), the carrier 334 of P4 is held stationary. Under this condition, as input torque drives sun gear 326 via C1, sun gear 332 drives carrier 328, which is connected to output shaft 304 and sun gear 332 of P4. With carrier 334 of P4 is held stationary via C6, sun gear 332 drives ring gear 336 in opposite direction and ring gear 336 is connected to ring gear 330 of P3. Thereof, “ring gear 330 is driven in opposite direction relative to carrier 328” which satisfies the claimed limitation.
Claim 1 does not require the first clutch act directly on first planetary gearset, it only requires engaging the clutch causes that opposite direction which Etchason expressly discloses.
Applicant further concedes that Warth is relied upon for "an input shaft drivingly connectable to an electric traction motor, a first gear stage comprising a first gear wheel and a second gear wheel drivingly connected to each other, the first gear wheel being rotationally connected to the input shaft, wherein a first sun gear and the first ring gear are rotationally connectable to the second gear wheel of the first gear stage." Thereof, combining Warth’s input gear stage with Etchason’s main transmission structure (P3, P4, C6) is predictable combination for a person of ordinary skill in electric vehicle transmission art. Since both reference are in the same field (vehicle transmission), and Warth’s input arrangement is conventional way to input motor torque into planetary gearset. No hindsight is required to apply an electric motor input with a gear stage to Etchason’s planetary gear (P3), which is already configured to receive input torque via (input shaft 302 and c1/c2). For those reasons, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 §103 is maintained.
With regarding the remarks to the remaining dependent claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Since the rejection of independent claim 1 is maintained for the reasons set forth above and applicant has not presented a separate argument directed to limitation of the dependent claims. Therefore, the rejected of the dependent claims are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant defines “connectable” should thus be construed as connectable by a clutch, the components are hence selectively connectable(see ¶[0008] of PGPUB version).
Applicant defines “rotationally connected to” and “rotationally connect” should be interpreted such that a component of the transmission arrangement is connected to another component of the transmission arrangement in such a way that the components rotate in the same direction and with the same rotational speed. The components thus rotate in the same direction and with the same rotational speed when being rotationally connected to each other. (¶[0008] of PGPUB version).
Applicant defines “rotationally connected to”, the wording “rotationally connectable to” should be construed such that the components of the transmission arrangement rotate in the same direction and with the same rotational speed when being connected to each other by a clutch (¶[0013] of PGPUB version)
Applicant defines “drivingly connected to” and “drivingly connectable to” should be interpreted as two components being either directly connected to each other, i.e. the components rotate in the same direction and with the same rotational speed, or connected to each other with one or more gear wheels therebetween (see ¶[0009] of PGPUB version)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ETCHASON (US 20170175855 A1) in view of Warth (US 10378616)
Claim 1: ETCHASON discloses a transmission arrangement (300; Fig.3) for a vehicle, the transmission arrangement (300; Fig.3) comprising:
a transmission input (302);
an output shaft (304) drivingly connectable to a pair of wheels of the vehicle (¶[0032]: “a drive axle (not shown) having tires or wheels mounted thereto at each end” );
and
wherein a first planetary gear set (310) comprising a first sun gear (326), a first ring gear (330) and a first planet carrier (328) carrying a first set of planet gears (¶[0049]: each of the carriers can include a plurality of planet gears rotatably coupled thereto”), the first set of planet gears (e.g. a plurality of planet gears) being in meshing engagement with the first ring gear (R2) and the first sun gear (S2),
wherein the first planet carrier (328) is rotationally connected to the output shaft (304), and
a crawler unit (312) comprising a plurality of gear members (336, 334, 332), the crawler unit (312) being drivingly connectable between the first planetary gear set (310) and the output shaft (304) by a first clutch (C6) (see ¶[0051]: “The P3 sun gear 326 transfers torque to the P3 carrier 328 which drives the transmission output 304.”),
wherein the first clutch (C6) is configured to rotationally connect one of the plurality of gear members (334) of the crawler unit (312) to 1 a stationary member (e.g. fixed member- as shown in Fig.3) of the transmission arrangement, to cause the first ring gear (330) to rotate in an opposite direction compared to a rotational direction of the first planet carrier (328) (¶[0051]: carrier 334 is fixed, the P4 sun gear 332 drives the P4 ring gear 336. The P4 ring gear 336 rotates in a direction opposite the P4 sun gear 332 and further drives the P3 ring gear 330 in the reverse direction, Although the P4 ring gear 336 is driven in the opposite direction by the P4 sun gear 332, it also rotates at a slower rotational speed than the P4 sun gear 332. Since the P4 ring gear 336 is rotating at a slower speed, the P3 ring gear 330 does so as well. Thus, with the P3 ring gear 330 rotating in the opposite direction compared to the P3 carrier 328.)
ETCHASON does not disclose an input shaft drivingly connectable to an electric traction motor, a first gear stage comprising a first gear wheel and a second gear wheel drivingly connected to each other, the first gear wheel being rotationally connected to the input shaft, wherein a first sun gear and the first ring gear are rotationally connectable to the second gear wheel of the first gear stage.
Note: ETCHASON discloses transmission input (302) drivingly connectable to engine (¶[0031]).
Warth teaches a transmission having an input shaft (Fig.7, EW) drivingly connectable to an electric traction motor (EM), a first gear stage (SS) comprising a first gear wheel (SR2) and a second gear wheel (SR1) drivingly connected to each other, the first gear wheel (SR2) being rotationally connected to the input shaft (EW), wherein a first sun gear (SO2) and the first ring gear (HO2) are rotationally connectable to the second gear wheel (SR1) of the first gear stage (SS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace engine with motor (EM-Warth) and having a first gear stage (SS-Warth) comprising a first gear wheel (SR2) and a second gear wheel (SR1) drivingly connected to each other as taught by Warth for the purpose of reducing carbon footprint, noise and increasing torque transmits to input shaft.
Accordingly, the result structure of ETCHASON in view of Warth would replace engine of ETCHASON with motor (EM-Warth) and include gear stage (SS-Warth) is rotationally connected to transmission input (302-ETCHASON)
Claim 3: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first sun gear (326) of the first planetary gear set (310) is rotationally connectable (via C1) to the second gear wheel (SR1-Warth) of the first gear stage (SS-Warth) by a second clutch (C1) of the transmission arrangement.
Claim 4: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 1, wherein the first ring gear (330) of the first planetary gear set (310) is rotationally connectable (via C2) to the second gear wheel (SR1-Warth) of the first gear stage (SS-Warth) by a third clutch (C2) of the transmission arrangement.
Claim 6: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses wherein the crawler unit (312) comprises a second planetary gear set, the plurality of gear members (332, 334, 336) of the crawler unit comprising a second sun gear (332), a second ring gear (336) and a second planet carrier (334) carrying a second set of planet gears (¶[0049]), the second set of planet gears (planet gears) being in meshing engagement with the second ring gear (336) and the second sun gear (332).
Claim 7: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 6, wherein the second sun gear (332) is rotationally connected to the first planet carrier (328).
Claim 9: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses The transmission arrangement of claim 7, wherein the second planet carrier (334) is rotationally connected (via C6) to the stationary member (e.g. fixed member as shown in Fig.3) of the transmission arrangement.
Claim 10: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 7, wherein the second ring gear (336) is rotationally connected to the first ring gear (330).
Claim 11: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 7, wherein the second planet carrier (334) is rotationally connectable to the stationary member (fixed member as shown in Fig.3) via the first clutch (C6) of the crawler unit.
Claim 12 ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 6, wherein the second ring gear (336) is rotationally connected to the first ring gear (330).
Claim 13: ETCHASON as modified by Warth discloses the transmission arrangement of claim 6, wherein the second planet carrier (334) is rotationally connectable (via C6) to the stationary member (fixed member as shown in Fig.3)
Claim 19: a powertrain (Fig.3) for an electrically propelled vehicle, the powertrain ( Fig.3) comprising: a transmission arrangement (300; Fig.3) according to claim 1, wherein the input shaft (302) of the transmission arrangement is drivingly connected (via SS-Warth) to the electric traction motor (EM-Warth).
Claim 20: A vehicle (¶[0003]) comprising the transmission arrangement (300; Fig.3) of the powertrain (Fig.3) according to claim 19.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ETCHASON (US 20170175855 A1) in view of Warth (US 10378616) and further in view of LIU (CN115306872A)
Claim 2: ETCHASON as modified by Warth does not disclose wherein the first gear stage is a reduction gear stage in which, during operation of the transmission arrangement, the first gear wheel rotates at a higher rotational speed compared to a rotational speed of the second gear wheel.
LIU teaches a gearbox (Fig.1) having an input shaft gear wheel (6-small gear) rotates at a higher rotational speed compared to a rotational speed of a countershaft gear wheel (11-large gear) (¶[0044]: “the first gear large gear 11 and the first gear small gear 6,.” Since gear 6 is small gear thereof, it rotates at higher rotational speed than large gear 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to swap gear stage (SS) from the modified transmission arrangement of ETCHASON with the input shaft gear wheel (6) and counter gear wheel (11) as taught by LIU for the purpose providing high torque for acceleration, carrying heavy load.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 12-13 of copending Application No. 19/082,380 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of current application and the claims of copending applicant claim the same invention using different combination of the same limitations.
Claim 1: see claims 1, 8, 12 and 13 of copending application ‘380
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 14-15, 17-18 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.
Claim 5: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “the first gear of the first planetary gear set is rotationally connectable to the stationary member via the third clutch”
Claim 8: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “the second ring gear is rotationally connectable to the first ring gear via the first clutch of the crawler unit”.
Claim 14: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “wherein the second sun gear is rotationally connectable to the first planet carrier via the first clutch of the crawler unit.”
Claim 15: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “wherein the second ring gear is rotationally connected to the first planet carrier.”
Claim 17: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “wherein the second sun gear is rotationally connectable to the first ring gear via the first clutch of the crawler unit”.
Claim 18: the prior art of record alone or in combination neither discloses nor renders obvious a transmission arrangement; specifically, “a set of crawler gear wheels drivingly connectable between the first planet carrier and the first ring gear via the first clutch of the crawler unit.”
The closest prior art as discussed above does not disclose the allowable limitation. Secondly, there is no reasons or disclosure from prior art that would led one skills in the art to modify the connection between the planetary gearset (312,310) of ETCHASON to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Lillian T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5404. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/ERNESTO A SUAREZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/LILLIAN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655A
1 The strikeout limitation is “or” limitation; thus the prior art does not require to satisfy the strikeout limitation to be applicable.