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 .
Status of Claims
This is the final office action on the merits of Application No. 19/101,454 filed on 02/05/2025. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The certified copy has been filed with application no JP2022-151208, filed on 09/22/2022.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mellet et al. (US 20150087464 A1) in view of Oita et al. (US 20140371025 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mellet discloses a unit (e.g. 140, fig. 7, para 52) comprising:
an input element (34);
an output element (22); and
a gear device (e.g. 26D) including a first rotational part (138, 50C), a second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A), a third rotational part (52D, 52B), and a fourth rotational part (52C, 139) arranged in this order on an alignment chart (not shown), wherein
the input element (34) is connectable to the first rotational part (138, 50C) and connectable to the second rotational part (132, 50A, 134, 52A),
the output element (22) is connected to the third rotational part (52D, 52B),
the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is switchable between a rotating state and a non-rotating state,
the gear device includes
a first planetary gear mechanism (50) including a first rotational element (50C), a second rotational element (50A), and a third rotational element (50D), and
a second planetary gear (52) mechanism including a fourth rotational element (52C), a fifth rotational element (52D), and a sixth rotational element (52A),
the first rotational part (138, 50C) is implemented by the first rotational element (50C),
the second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A) is implemented by coupling the second rotational element (50A) and the sixth rotational element (52A),
the third rotational part (52D, 52B) is implemented by the fifth rotational element (52D), and
the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is implemented by coupling (via 136, 52D) the third rotational element (50D) and the fourth rotational element (52C).
But Mellet fails to disclose an alignment chart and the second rotational element being disposed between the first rotational element and the third rotational element on the alignment chart and the fifth rotational element being disposed between the fourth rotational element and the sixth rotational element on the alignment chart.
Oita teaches a similar kind of unit (e.g. 70, figs. 16-18) wherein an alignment chart (see fig. 18) and the second rotational element (R5) being disposed between the first rotational element (S5) and the third rotational element (CA5) on the alignment chart, the fifth rotational element (CA2) being disposed between the fourth rotational element (S2) and the sixth rotational element (R2)on the alignment chart.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mellet by adding the alignment chart as taught by Oita, such as the unit can be provided to simplify the processing in the manufacturing stage. and therefore, a robustness of the transmission can be achieved. (see para 109 of Oita)
As modified, the unit would have an alignment chart and the second rotational element being disposed between the first rotational element and the third rotational element on the alignment chart and the fifth rotational element being disposed between the fourth rotational element and the sixth rotational element on the alignment chart.
Regarding claim 2, Mellet / Oita discloses the unit (e.g. 140, fig. 7, para 52) as modified according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first engagement element (58);
a second engagement element (60); and
a third engagement element, wherein
one side of the first engagement element (60) is connected to the input element (34),
the other side of the first engagement element (58) is connected to the second rotational part (50A) ,
one side of the second engagement element (60) is connected to the input element (34),
the other side of the second engagement element (60) is connected to the first rotational part (50C),
one side of the third engagement element (56) is connected to the fourth rotational part (52C), and the other side of the third engagement element is fixed (to the housing 16).
Regarding claim 3, Mellet / Oita discloses the unit (e.g. 140, fig. 7, para 52) as modified according to claim 2, wherein each of the first to third engagement elements (e.g. 58, 60, 56) is disposed axially outward of the gear device.
Regarding claim 4, Mellet / Oita discloses the unit (e.g. 140, fig. 7, para 52) as modified according to claim 1, wherein three gear positions are implemented by changing two elements to be engaged among the first to third engagement elements.
Regarding claim 5, Mellet / Oita discloses the unit (e.g. 140, fig. 7, para 52) as modified according to claim 1, wherein the one side of the first engagement element (58) and the one side of the second engagement element (60) are implemented as an integrated component (34).
Response to argument
Applicant's arguments filed 2/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Mellet and Oita, either taken alone or in proper combination, fail to disclose a unit in which "the input element is connectable to the first rotational part and connectable to the second rotational part,""the fourth rotational part is switchable between a rotating state and a non- rotating state,""the second rotational part is implemented by coupling the second rotational element and the sixth rotational element,""the third rotational part is implemented by the fifth rotational element," and "the fourth rotational part is implemented by coupling the third rotational element and the fourth rotational element," as recited in independent claim 1. “ This is not persuasive. Mellet reference discloses this feature such as “the input element (34) is connectable to the first rotational part (138, 50C) and connectable to the second rotational part (132 via clutch 58),""the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is switchable between a rotating state and a non- rotating state (via brake 56),""the second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A, fig. 7) is implemented by coupling the second rotational element (50A) and the sixth rotational element (52A),""the third rotational part (52D, 52B) is implemented by the fifth rotational element (52D)," and "the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is implemented by coupling (via 136, 52D) the third rotational element (50D) and the fourth rotational element (52C). Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further argues “Mellet does not state whether the planetary gear set arrangement shown in FIG. 7 is a single-pinion type (which is understood to be a configuration in which pinion gears mesh with a sun gear and a ring gear) or a double-pinion type (which is understood to be a configuration having first pinion gears meshing with the sun gear and second pinion gears meshing with the ring gear, where the first pinion gears and the second pinion gears mesh with each other). As understood by the Applicant, the planetary gear mechanism shown in FIG. 7 is a single-pinion type, with the sun gear, carrier, and ring gear are arranged in that order on an alignment chart.” “ This is not persuasive. The claim is not directed to whether the planetary gear is a single or double-pinion type. Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further argues about the alignment charts and “Based on the foregoing, in drawing an alignment chart for the planetary gear mechanism shown in FIG. 7 of Mellet , Applicant considers two possible patterns as illustrated below. However, given Mellet's description that FIG. 7 is a transmission having multiple forward speeds and at least one reverse speed, Pattern 2 would not be used because Pattern 2 does not have a reverse speed. Therefore, the alignment chart for the planetary gear mechanism shown in FIG. 7 of Mellet is understood to be Pattern 1. Moreover, taking into account Applicant's understanding that FIG. 7 of Mellet shows a single-pinion type, the carriers (e.g., the "planet carrier member 50B" and the "planet carrier member 52B") of the two planetary gear sets (e.g., the "first planetary ger set 50" and the "second planetary gear set 52") are common. Also, the ring gears (e.g., the "ring gear member 50A" and the "ring gear member 52A") of the two planetary gear sets are common. Accordingly, on the alignment chart, the arrangement of the carrier and the ring gear is fixed, such that the two sun gears must be disposed to the left of the carrier.
Additionally, which sun gear among sun gear member 50C and sun gear member 52C is on the right or left depends on the tooth number settings of the respective gears, so there are two pattern options. However, according to [0053], Mellet has a reverse speed, which excludes Pattern 2 and instead leaves only Pattern 1. In short, based on its teachings, Applicant understands that Mellet's alignment follows Pattern 1. Pattern 1 of Mellet does not meet the recited arrangement of claim 1 in numerous respects, e.g., Mellet fails to disclose or suggest a unit in which "the input element is connectable to the first rotational part and connectable to the second rotational part,""the fourth rotational part is switchable between a rotating state and a non-rotating state,""the second rotational part is implemented by coupling the second rotational element and the sixth rotational element,""the third rotational part is implemented by the fifth rotational element," and "the fourth rotational part is implemented by coupling the third rotational element and the fourth rotational element," as recited in independent claim 1. This is not persuasive. The claim is not directed to reverse or forward speed. Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees. Mellet's alignment does not follow either Pattern 1 nor Pattern 2. For example, In both patterns, the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is ring gears (50A, 52A) but in Mellet's reference the fourth rotational part is sun gear 52C, and interconnecting member 139.
Mellet reference discloses “the input element (34) is connectable to the first rotational part (138, 50C) and connectable to the second rotational part (132 via clutch 58),""the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is switchable between a rotating state and a non- rotating state (via brake 56),""the second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A, fig. 7) is implemented by coupling the second rotational element (50A) and the sixth rotational element (52A),""the third rotational part (52D, 52B) is implemented by the fifth rotational element (52D)," and "the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is implemented by coupling (via 136, 52D) the third rotational element (50D) and the fourth rotational element (52C). Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant further argues “Mellet does not disclose that "the input element is connectable to the first rotational part and connectable to the second rotational part." Rather, the "second transfer shaft 34" of Mellet (which the Office Action analogizes with the "input element" of claim 1) is connectable to the "sun gear member 50C" (e.g., the first rotational part in Pattern 1) and the ring gear members 50A/52A (e.g., the fourth rotational part in Pattern 1). Thus, Mellet does not disclose this feature. This is not persuasive. Mellet reference discloses the input element (34) is connectable to the first rotational part (138, 50C) and connectable to the second rotational part (132, 50A, 134, 52A via clutch 58). The ring gear members 50A/52A of Mellet reference is the second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A), not the fourth rotational part as shown in pattern 1. Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues “Mellet does not disclose that "the fourth rotational part is switchable between a rotating state and a non-rotating state." Rather, in Mellet, the second rotational part (e.g., the "sun gear member 52C" in Pattern 1) is switchable between a rotating state and a non-rotating state. Thus, Mellet does not disclose this feature. This is not persuasive. Mellet reference discloses the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is switchable between a rotating state and a non- rotating state (via brake 56). The sun gear member 52C of Mellet reference is the fourth rotational part (e.g. 52C, 139), not the second rotational part as shown in pattern 1. Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues “Mellet does not disclose that "the second rotational part is implemented by coupling the second rotational element and the sixth rotational element." Instead, as shown in Pattern 1, above, the "second rotational element" is only the "sun gear member 52C." Therefore, Mellet does not disclose this feature”. This is not persuasive. Mellet reference the second rotational part (e.g. 132, 134, 50A, 52A, fig. 7) is implemented by coupling the second rotational element (50A) and the sixth rotational element (52A). Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues “Mellet does not disclose that "the third rotational part is implemented by the fifth rotational element." Rather, as shown in Pattern 1, the "third rotational part" is not implemented by such a rotational element. Instead, the "third rotational part" is implemented by coupling two rotational elements (e.g., the "planet carrier member 50B" and the "planet carrier member 52B"). This is not persuasive. Mellet reference the third rotational part (52D, 52B) is implemented by the fifth rotational element (52D). Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues “Mellet does not disclose that "the fourth rotational part is implemented by coupling the third rotational element and the fourth rotational element." Rather, as shown in Pattern 1, the "fourth rotational part" is implemented by coupling the third rotational element (e.g., the "ring-7- gear member 50A" and the sixth rotational element (e.g., the "ring gear member 52A"). Thus, Mellet does not disclose this feature”. This is not persuasive. Mellet reference the fourth rotational part (52C, 139) is implemented by coupling (via 136, 52D) the third rotational element (50D) and the fourth rotational element (52C). Therefore, examiner respectfully disagrees.
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 FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Jacob S. Scott can be reached on 5712703415. 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.
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655