DETAILED ACTION
This is the second Office action of Application No. 19/282,429 in response to the amendment filed on July 9, 2026. Claims 1-13, 15-19, and 22-23 are pending. By the amendment, claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 14 and 20-21 are canceled. Claims 22-23 are new.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/9/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klemen (US Patent 7810592).
Regarding claim 23, Klemen discloses a hybrid module (Fig. 3) for a vehicle, comprising: an electric motor (36a) comprising a stator (80a) and a rotor (82a); a torque converter (14a) operably coupled to the electric motor; and a rotor hub (90) comprising a rotor hub foot (see markup in Table 1 below), the rotor hub foot extending outward in a radial direction which is perpendicular to an axial direction of the hybrid module (see markup in Table 1 below), wherein: an inner diameter of the stator in a radial direction is greater than an outer diameter of the torque converter in the radial direction (shown in Fig. 3); and an outer diameter of the rotor hub foot in the radial direction is sized such that the rotor hub foot does not overlap magnets of the rotor (see markup in Table 1 below, the entirety of the foot is below 82a and thus has to not overlap the magnets of the rotor).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-15, filed 7/9/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. More specifically, for amended independent claim 1, the amended claim includes the previously indicated allowable subject matter. For amended independent claim 22, the amended claim includes the previously indicated allowable subject matter. The prior art rejections to claims 1-13, 15-19, and 22 have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 23, applicant's arguments filed 7/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As noted by the applicant on page 11, claim 23 is a new claim and is combination of claim 1, claim 12 (in-part), and claim 13. Regarding Binder (US Patent Publication 20220219524), the arguments on pages 12-13 are well-taken, however there two radial extensions on the rotor hub and while it is agreed splines 76 do extend radially inward, the radial extension on the other side and highlighted below extends radially outward and reads on the claim. Furthermore, the extension is small in height meaning it would not overlap the magnets. Table 1, below, shows markups of the relevant art and the location of the foot. Regarding Klemen arguments on page 14, there is clearly a radial extension/foot shown in the highlights below. As the arguments do not seem to address this radial extension highlighted below, it is difficult fully address applicant’s arguments concerns in this section of the arguments (page 14) as different features are being relied upon. Klemen Fig. 3, shows the entirety of the foot of 90 or 92 (see mark-up) is below 82a therefore would not overlap the magnets. Additionally, Satyaseelan (US Patent Publicaiton 20210237551) discloses a foot small in radial extension which means it likely does not overlap the magnets. Above, the rejection using Klemen is used for compact prosecution, but note that the features of Binder and Satyaseelan could be used alone or in combination to address claim 23.
Table 1: Art and Mark-ups to highlight location of foot
Art
Hub and Foot
Instant Application 19/282,429
PNG
media_image1.png
594
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Binder (US Patent Publication 20220219524)
PNG
media_image2.png
692
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Klemen (US Patent 7810592)
PNG
media_image3.png
590
322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Satyaseelan (US Patent Publicaiton 20210237551)
PNG
media_image4.png
782
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13, 15-19, and 22 are allowed.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
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 LORI WU whose telephone number is (469)295-9111. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs 8:00-5:00 CST.
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.
/LORI WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights