DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (JP 2021112116 A; “Inoue”).
Inoue discloses:
Regarding claim 1:
An electric axle device (depicted in FIG. 1) for a vehicle (abstract “vehicle drive device”), comprising:
an axle housing (1) for containing a differential device (DF; FIG. 2);
a reduction gear (G; FIG. 2) attached to the axle housing (depicted in FIG. 2);
an electric motor (MG) attached to the reduction gear (depicted in FIG. 2); and
an inverter (INV; FIG. 1-2) attached to at least one of the reduction gear and the electric motor (via at least boss B, flange Fl, and fastener Fa and within compartment 3 as seen in FIG. A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIGURE A: Annotated view of Inoue
Regarding claim 2:
The electric axle device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the inverter is attached on the housing of at least one of the reduction gear and the electric motor (via at least boss B, flange Fl, and fastener Fa and within compartment 3 as seen in FIG. A above).
Regarding claim 3:
The electric axle device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein a boss (B in FIG. A above) that stands upward is provided on the housing of at least one of the reduction gear and the electric motor (FIG. A above depicts boss B extending vertically upward from the floor of the compartment 3 of the housing 1), and the inverter is attached to the boss (depicted in FIG. A above, FIG. 2 as well).
Regarding claim 4:
The electric axle device for the vehicle according to claim 3, wherein a flange (Fl; FIG. A above) that protrudes to a side is provided on a bottom surface portion of the inverter (FIG. A above depicts flange FL extending laterally and provided on a bottom surface of inverter INV), and the flange is attached to the boss (via fastener ass reasonably disclosed/depicted in FIG. A above; see MPEP § 2125).
Regarding claim 6:
The electric axle device for the vehicle according to claim 1, wherein the inverter is attached inside of the housing of at least one of the reduction gear and the electric motor (FIG. 1-2 reasonably depicts/discloses the inverter INV attached inside housing 1 via compartment 3; see MPEP § 2125), and a housing (1) of the inverter is shared with the housing of at least one of the reduction gear and the electric motor (FIG. 2 depicts all of the inverter INV, reduction gear G and motor MG sharing housing 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Hamanaka et al. (JP 2021024327 A; “Hamanaka”).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue discloses the limitations of claim 4, see above, but does not expressly disclose that the flange and the boss are attached via an elastic body.
Hamanaka teaches a flange (6) and a boss (upward extending portion of body 4 as seen in FIG. 2) attached (via fastener 11) via an elastic body (9; FIG. 2) as a vibration absorbing means (abstract, “vibration absorption bush 9”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, with a reasonable expectation of success, Inoue such that the flange and the boss are attached via an elastic body. The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is a rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that both Inoue and Inoue are drawn to analogous/similar structures i.e. mounting instruments to a vehicle, and would therefore recognize that modifying Inoue in view of the known technique taught in Hamanaka as described supra would, with reasonable predictability, result in Inoue’s flange Fl and boss B being attached via an elastic body like elasitc body 9 in Hamanaka. “[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references." DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see MPEP § 2143(I)(G). Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of using an elastic like Hamanaka’s elastic/vibration absorbing means 9 between Inoue’s flange Fl and boss B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D YABUT whose telephone number is (571)270-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 John Olszewski can be reached on (571) 272-2706. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL D YABUT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656