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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant asserts that claims 1-6 and 8-14 read on Species A. However, claim 7 recites the limitation “the first and second drive wheels are arranged axially offset relative to each other”, which is disclosed by Species A. Therefore, claim 7 will be examined. Additionally, claim 9 recites the limitation “the first and second drive wheels are arranged radially offset relative to each other”; claim 13 recites the limitation “at least one of the drive wheels has engagement elements arranged such that the engagement elements are configured to be radially displaceable in relation to a center of the drive wheel”; and claim 14 recites the limitation “the engagement elements are configured to be pushed radially outward from a center of the drive wheel by an elastic force”. The limitations of claims 9 and 13-14 are only disclosed by species B, i.e., Fig. 3. Therefore, claims 9 and 13-14 are withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/13/2025. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2025 was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 12 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the engagement elements”. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the engagement elements of the first drive wheel, the engagement elements of the second drive wheel or the engagement elements of the first and second drive wheels. Note that MPEP 2173.02 states “During prosecution, Applicant has an opportunity and a duty to amend ambiguous claims to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. The claim places the public on notice of the scope of the patentee’s right to exclude. See Johnson & Johnson Assoc. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046, 1052, 62 USPQ 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saito (US 3992961 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 Fig. 10, wherein the bottom tooth of B is engaged with C, and the next tooth that engages C is the bottom right/left tooth of A 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).
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 11, Saito discloses the mating toothing (C) comprises at least one rack (see Fig. 10).
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 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of 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 7-8 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 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 8, Saito fails to disclose the first and second drive wheels are arranged coaxially offset relative to one another. However, Wells teaches the first and second drive wheels (see Fig. 1; 21, 22) are arranged coaxially offset relative 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).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of 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).
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito (US 3992961 A) in view of Lim (US 20140026692 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Saito fails to disclose the engagement elements are cylinders, each having at least one rotatable element configured to roll the cylinders on the mating toothing. However, Lim teaches the engagement elements (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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
US 1817019 A, FR 937649 A, DE 1116491 B, DE 202009017290 U1 and DE 10225823 A1 disclose variations of drive elements having two gear wheels with tangentially offset engagement elements.
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