DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-19 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second drive wheels have a common motor configured to drive the drive wheels via a mechanical and/or hydraulic torque distribution, as required by claim 2; the mechanical and/or hydraulic torque distribution comprises at least one differential gear, as required by claim 3; and the first and second drive wheels are coupled to a vehicle and the mating toothing is coupled in a stationary manner to a transport track, as required by claim 10, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 3 reads “interest”, --intersect-- is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 4-7, 11 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of Wells (US 5430361 A).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a drive system (see Fig. 10 and 12) comprising: a drive element (A, B); and a mating toothing (C); wherein the drive element includes a first drive wheel (A) and a second drive wheel (B), each having respective engagement elements (teeth), the engagement elements of the first drive wheel being offset tangentially relative to the engagement elements of the second drive wheel (see Fig. 10, wherein the teeth of A are offset from the teeth of B in the circumferential direction. Note page 2 lines 14-15 of the instant application specification, wherein “tangentially offset means being offset in a circumferential direction”), such that the engagement elements of the drive wheels engage the mating toothing alternately (see annotated Fig. 10 below, wherein the bottom tooth 2 is engaged with C, and the next tooth that engages C is the bottom right/left tooth 1 or 2 depending on the direction of rotation), and at least one of the engagement elements of the first drive wheel and at least one of the engagement elements of the second drive wheel are in engagement with the mating toothing at least temporarily (see Fig. 10, wherein the teeth of A and B temporarily engage with C during rotation). Saito fails to disclose the first drive wheel and second drive wheel are arranged coaxially with respect to one another. However, Wells teaches the first drive wheel and second drive wheel (see Fig. 1; 21, 22) are arranged coaxially with respect to one another (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Saito with the first and second drive wheels arranged coaxially offset relative to each other, as taught by Wells, to provide an integrated electric gearhead motor assembly incorporating two motors and two gearhead assemblies integrated into a single housing that provides for relatively high torque output and minimal backlash (see column 1 lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 4, Saito discloses the drive system comprises two motors (see Fig. 12; A’, B’) which each drive at least one of the drive wheels (A, B).
Regarding claim 5, Saito discloses the drive system comprises at least two motors (see Fig. 12; A’, B’) operatively coupled to the drive wheels (A, B), and the drive system is configured to control the at least two motors to apply a constant torque at least for a period of the time (via PM; see column 4 lines 34-38, wherein the two torques produced by the angular displacement of the pulse motors A' and B' balance each other at the main gear C through the meshing gear A and B, so that the main gear C does not rotate but is rigidly held in the position).
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses the at least two motors (A, B) are electric motors (see column 2 line 60, wherein a pulse motor is disclosed) having a torque control or a torque regulation (via PM).
Regarding claim 7, Saito fails to disclose the first and second drive wheels are arranged axially offset relative to each other. However, Wells teaches the first and second drive wheels (see Fig. 1; 21, 22) are arranged axially offset relative to each other (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Saito with the first and second drive wheels arranged axially offset relative to each other, as taught by Wells, to provide an integrated electric gearhead motor assembly incorporating two motors and two gearhead assemblies integrated into a single housing that provides for relatively high torque output and minimal backlash (see column 1 lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 11, Saito discloses the mating toothing (C) comprises at least one rack (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (Wells; 21, 22) are not radially offset from one another (Wells; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the engagement elements of the first drive wheel (Wells; 21) are arranged adjacent to the engagement elements of the second drive wheel (Wells; 22).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the engagement elements of the first drive wheel (Wells; 21) and the engagement elements of the second drive wheel (Wells; 22) are alternately arranged with each other in a circumferential direction about the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (Saito; Fig. 10; offset arrangement of teeth of A and B).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: each respective engagement element of the first drive wheel (Wells; 21) is arranged in a respective space between two respective adjacent engagement elements of the second drive wheel (Wells; 22), and wherein each respective engagement element of the second drive wheel is arranged in a respective space between two respective adjacent engagement elements of the first drive wheel (Saito; Fig. 10; offset arrangement of teeth of A and B).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the engagement elements of the first drive wheel (Wells; 21) and the engagement elements of the second drive wheel (Wells; 22) each [intersect] a plane perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel (Wells; axis of 18).
Claim 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of Wells (US 5430361 A) and Pittini (US 20140137679 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Saito fails to disclose the first and second drive wheels have a common motor configured to drive the drive wheels via a mechanical and/or hydraulic torque distribution. However, Pittini teaches the first and second drive wheels (see Fig. 5; 12, 13) have a common motor (7) configured to drive the drive wheels via a mechanical and/or hydraulic torque distribution (8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Saito with a common motor to drive the drive wheels via a mechanical torque distribution, as taught by Pittini, to reduce the number of electrical components, e.g. motor and wiring, of the drive system to reduce the weight and size, resulting in lower manufacturing and operating costs.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 2 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the mechanical and/or hydraulic torque distribution (Pittini; 8) comprises at least one differential gear (Pittini; see paragraph [0023], wherein a common differential gear can serve as a differential).
Claim 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of Wells (US 5430361 A) and Lim (US 20250155002 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Saito fails to disclose the first and second drive wheels are coupled to a vehicle and the mating toothing is coupled in a stationary manner to a transport track. However, Lim teaches the drive wheel (see Fig. 7; 101) is coupled to a vehicle (see Fig. 2; 120) and the mating toothing is coupled in a stationary manner to a transport track (110). As a result of the combination, the following limitations would necessarily result: the first and second drive wheels (Saito; A, B) are coupled to the vehicle (Lim; 120). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Saito with a vehicle and transport track, as taught by Lim, to provide a transportation system that has a numerically controlled reversible gear system for removing the backlash in all the driving stages, i.e. at stopping, forward running, backward running and for improving accuracy of the stopping position so as to decrease an error caused by the angular deviation of the system (Saito; column 1 lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 12, Saito fails to disclose the engagement elements of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel are cylinders, each having at least one rotatable element configured to roll the cylinders on the mating toothing. However, Lim teaches the engagement elements of the first drive wheel and the second drive wheel are cylinders (see Fig. 4; 140) are cylinders, each having at least one rotatable element configured to roll the cylinders on the mating toothing (see Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Saito with cylinder engaging elements, as taught by Lim, to provide a gear engagement that interlock cleanly and reliably and to provide a gear engagement that has improved strength and reliability when transmitting high levels of torque.
PNG
media_image1.png
477
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1 - US 3992961 A Fig. 10 Annotated
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s argument that an express illustration of the limitations of claims 2, 3 and 10 are not necessary for understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter to be patented, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 37 CFR 1.83(a) reads “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”. Applicant appears to be admitting that the features of claims 2, 3 and 10 are conventional features and are not essential for proper understanding of the invention. If so, the drawings should be amended to include these conventional features in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a). Note that subsequent rejections of claims 2, 3 and 10 will be as obvious variants of the drive system disclosed in Fig. 1. If Applicant does not admit the features of claims 2, 3 and 10 are conventional, then the drawings must show every feature of the claimed invention specified in the claims, as required by 37 CFR 1.83(a).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Saito does not disclose or suggest an arrangement in which engagement elements of two drive wheels alternately engage a mating toothing as recited in claim 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes MEP 2125(I) states “Drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972)…The origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979).” As can be seen in the annotated Fig. 10 of Saito above, the engagement element 2 of drive wheel B is pointing downward is a vertical orientation, and the engagement elements 1 and 3 of drive wheel A are angled to the left and right of the vertical orientation of engagement element 2. In other words, the engagement elements of drive wheel A are offset from the engagement elements of drive wheel B. During operation of the motors, engagement element 1 engages C first, engagement element 2 engages second and engagement element 3 engages third. Therefore, Saito discloses an arrangement in which the engagement elements of two drive wheels alternately engage a mating toothing as recited in claim 1. The Examiner notes that Applicant further argues that Saito discloses rotation of the motors in opposite directions to reduce backlash. While true, Saito discloses this backlash reduction as a step prior to forward operation. Saito further discloses that “since the pulse motors A' and B' are controlled by an instruction from an identical driving controlling equipment, the pulse motors A' and B' both rotate in forward direction and the gears A and B both rotate in clockwise direction by identical steps as shown in FIG. 9 and the main gear C rotates in counterclockwise direction.”
Given at least the arguments presented above, the objections to the drawings and the rejection of the claims are maintained.
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 JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights