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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a shaft and gear…configured to rotate integrally with the rotating electrical machine” in lines 3-4. As disclosed in the specification, the stator (22) of the rotating electrical machine (20) does not rotate. Only the rotor (21) of the rotating electrical machine rotates. It is unclear to the Examiner how the stator of the rotating electrical machine can rotate integrally with the shaft and gear if the stator is a stationary part of the device. It is assumed that the shaft and the gear rotate with the rotor of the rotating electrical machine.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KASAHARA et al. (US 2022/0320953) in view of NAKADERA et al. (EP 3279515 A1).
Regarding claim 4, KASAHARA discloses a unit (1) comprising: a rotating electrical machine (2); a shaft (22) and a gear (71) coaxially disposed with the rotating electrical machine and configured to rotate integrally with the rotating electrical machine; a differential gear (shown in the figures, but not labeled) connected downstream of the shaft; a differential case (to which ring gear 74 is connected) configured to accommodate the differential gear; and a grounding body (6, Fig. 7) in contact with the shaft (22), and the gear (71) is located between the rotating electrical machine (2) and the grounding body (6).
KASAHARA does not disclose the grounding body has a portion that overlaps the differential case when viewed in a radial direction.
NAKADERA teaches (sees Fig. 3 and 15) the grounding body (70, at the end of shaft 59) has a portion that overlaps the differential case (@ 28) when viewed in a radial direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layout of the unit disclosed by KASAHARA such that the grounding body would have a portion that overlaps the differential case when viewed in a radial direction, as taught by NAKADERA since it has been held that where the prior art teaches that rearranging the elements of an invention, only involves routine skill in the art. And a person of ordinary skill in the art, would relocate the differential housing of KASAHARA to the other side of the gear (71) for better packaging and/ or weight distribution.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KASAHARA et al. (US 2022/0320953) in view of NAKADERA et al. (EP 3279515 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of AIKAWA et al. (US 7,990,004 B2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of KASAHARA- NAKADERA discloses a distal end of the shaft (22) located between the grounding body (6) and the gear (71), but does not disclose this end not being supported by a bearing.
AIKAWA teaches a unit having a shaft (57) having a distal end (@ 77) that is not supported by a bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the unit disclosed by the combination of KASAHARA- NAKADERA such that the distal end of the shaft would not be supported by a bearing, as taught by AIKAWA, since the location of a bearing is a matter of design choice. The art teaches that in a transmission system having an electric motor, an idle shaft, and a differential, one of ordinary skill has the option of having a bearing at the distal end (shown in KARAHARA), or not having a bearing at the distal end (taught by AIKAWA. Both inventions allow for the transmission of torque from the motor to the differential. The placement of the bearing is a decision that is made based on loads, speeds, packaging constraints, etc.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KASAHARA-NAKADERA-AIKAWA discloses a sealing member (A, in the annotated Figure 1 below) located between the grounding body and the gear.
PNG
media_image1.png
951
1054
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 15 of NAKADERA
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK D. KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7951. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: From 5:30am-1:30pm 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, 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.
/DEREK D KNIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights