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 .
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 .
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 engagement portion comprises external splines, wherein the second engagement portion comprises internal splines, and wherein the third engagement portion comprises external splines, wherein the internal splines of the second engagement portion are configured to engage with the external splines of the first engagement portion in the first axial position, and engage with the external splines of the third engagement portion in the third axial position (claim 9),” 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.
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 9-15 and 18 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 9 recites “the first engagement portion comprises external splines, wherein the second engagement portion comprises internal splines, and wherein the third engagement portion comprises external splines, wherein the internal splines of the second engagement portion are configured to engage with the external splines of the first engagement portion in the first axial position, and engage with the external splines of the third engagement portion in the third axial position.”
This limitation is essentially repeated in paragraphs [0009] and [0035] in the specification. The drawings do not show this claimed embodiment. As there is no further description of this arrangement, it is unclear to the Examiner how the claimed external and internal spline structures are arranged within the invention to interact with the other claimed, shown, and disclosed elements and features.
Claims 10-15 are rejected due to their dependance on the rejected claim 9.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a motor” in line 4. This appears to be an instance of double inclusion with the same limitation recited in line 5 of claim 1. Appropriate correction is requested.
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) 1 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (US 9,776,497) in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US 7,971,666).
Regarding claim 1, HORI discloses a drive mechanism (see Fig. 8) of a hybrid electric system for a vehicle, the drive mechanism comprising: an internal combustion engine drive assembly (FW, 10, 12, 13); a motor drive assembly (M/G2, 11, 17) configured to be drivingly connected to a motor (M/G2); a wheel drive assembly (14, 15, 16, Diff) configured to be drivingly connected to one or more wheels; and a dog clutch (CL1, CL2) comprising a first engagement portion (13), a second engagement portion (17), and a third engagement portion (16), the first engagement portion (13) being arranged on the internal combustion engine drive assembly, the second engagement portion (17) being arranged on the motor drive assembly, and the third engagement portion (16) being arranged on the wheel drive assembly, wherein the second engagement portion (17) is configured to be axially movable to be engaged with the first engagement portion in a first axial position, disengaged from the first engagement portion and the third engagement portion in a second axial position, and engaged with the third engagement portion in a third axial position.
HORI does not disclose the internal combustion engine drive assembly configured to be drivingly connected an internal combustion engine.
YAMAZAKI teaches a drive mechanism of a hybrid electric system having an internal combustion engine (10) and that “an engine may be operated to provide kinetic energy to a flywheel…for later application at the drive wheels.” Col. 3, lines 49-51.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hybrid electric system of HORI such that the internal combustion engine drive assembly (which includes a flywheel (FW)) would be configured to be drivingly connected an internal combustion engine, as taught by YAMAZAKI, “operated to provide kinetic energy to a flywheel…for later application at the drive wheels.” Col. 3, lines 49-51.
Regarding claim 16, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses the wheel drive assembly comprises: a gear (16) rotatably sleeved on a second output shaft (11) of the motor drive assembly; a differential (DIFF); and axle shafts (_497, Fig. 8), wherein the third engagement portion is drivingly connected to or integrally formed with the gear (16), and wherein the differential comprises a driven gear and differential side gears, the driven gear being drivingly connected to the gear, and the differential side gears being connected to the one or more wheels via the axle shafts.
Regarding claim 17, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses the internal combustion engine drive assembly, but does not disclose it comprises a torsional damper arranged between the internal combustion engine and the first engagement portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have a torsional damper arranged between the internal combustion engine and the first engagement portion, as the inclusion of a torsional damper on the output of an internal combustion engine within the context of being used in a vehicle is old and well known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses a range extender of a hybrid electric system for a vehicle, the range extender comprising: the drive mechanism of claim 1; and a motor (M/G2) drivingly connected to the motor drive assembly of the drive mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses a hybrid electric system for a vehicle, the hybrid electric system comprising: a range extender of claim 18; and an internal combustion engine (_666, 10) drivingly connected to the internal combustion engine drive assembly of the drive mechanism of the range extender, wherein the second engagement portion (_497, 17) is engaged with the first engagement portion when the hybrid electric system is in a first operation mode, wherein the second engagement portion is not engaged with the first engagement portion or the third engagement portion when the hybrid electric system is in a second operation mode, and wherein the second engagement portion is engaged with the third engagement portion when the hybrid electric system is in a third operation mode.
Regarding claim 20, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses vehicle (_497, 1), comprising a hybrid electric system of claim 19.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (US 9,776,497) in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US 7,971,666) as applied to claims 1 and 16-20 above, and further in view of BELMONT et al. (US 7,766,779).
Regarding claim 2, HORI-YAMAZAKI discloses the drive mechanism, but does not disclose the first engagement portion comprises first engagement teeth at an end of the first engagement portion near the second engagement portion, wherein the second engagement portion comprises second engagement teeth at a first end of the second engagement portion near the first engagement portion and third engagement teeth at a second end of the second engagement portion near the third engagement portion, wherein the third engagement portion comprises fourth engagement teeth at an end of the third engagement portion near the second engagement portion, wherein the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion are configured to engage with each other via the first engagement teeth and the second engagement teeth, and wherein the second engagement portion and the third engagement portion are configured to engage with each other via the third engagement teeth and the fourth engagement teeth.
BELMONT teaches (see Fig. 4b) the first engagement portion comprises first engagement teeth (67) at an end of the first engagement portion near the second engagement portion, wherein the second engagement portion comprises second engagement teeth (65) at a first end of the second engagement portion near the first engagement portion and third engagement teeth (66) at a second end of the second engagement portion near the third engagement portion, wherein the third engagement portion comprises fourth engagement teeth (68) at an end of the third engagement portion near the second engagement portion, wherein the first engagement portion and the second engagement portion are configured to engage with each other via the first engagement teeth and the second engagement teeth, and wherein the second engagement portion and the third engagement portion are configured to engage with each other via the third engagement teeth and the fourth engagement teeth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention the construct the dog clutch disclosed in HORI in the way taught by BELMONT to allow for torque to be transmitted from the motor shaft to the respective gears. As both references disclose dog clutch mechanisms and BELMONT is used to show the details of such a mechanism. The substitution of one dog clutch mechanism for another would yield the predictable result of allowing torque to be selectively transmitted from one component to others.
Regarding claim 3, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT discloses the motor drive assembly comprises a second output shaft (_497, 11), and wherein the second engagement portion of the dog clutch is axially slidably sleeved outside the second output shaft and is rotationally fixedly connected to the second output shaft.
Regarding claim 6, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT discloses the internal combustion engine drive assembly comprises a first output shaft (_497, 10), wherein the first engagement portion (13) is formed on or rotationally fixedly connected (via the meshing of the gear 12) to the first output shaft, wherein the second engagement portion (17) is axially movably sleeved on the second output shaft (11) via one or more splines (see _779), and wherein the third engagement portion (13) is rotatably sleeved on the second output shaft via a bearing (_779, 69, 70, 70.1, 70.2).
Regarding claim 7, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT discloses a shift fork mechanism (_779, Figs. 5a, 8) for the dog clutch, the shift fork mechanism comprising a shift fork (86) and a shift fork shaft (102), wherein a first end of the shift fork is fixedly connected to the shift fork shaft to move the shift fork with the shift fork shaft, wherein a second end of the shift fork is connected to the second engagement portion (_779, 80), and wherein the shift fork mechanism is configured to drive the second engagement portion to move in an axial direction of the second output shaft to bring the second engagement portion into any one of the first axial position, the second axial position, or the third axial position.
Regarding claim 8, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT discloses a driving mechanism (_779, Fig. 8, (99)) configured to drive the shift fork mechanism to move in a first direction.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HORI (US 9,776,497) in view of YAMAZAKI et al. (US 7,971,666), and further in view of BELMONT et al. (US 7,766,779) as applied to claims 2, 3, and 6-8 above, and further in view of SARTRE et al. (US 8,398,515).
Regarding claim 4, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT discloses the motor drive assembly, but does not disclose the motor drive assembly comprises an input shaft, wherein the input shaft is drivingly connected to the second output shaft via a reduction gear set.
SARTRE teaches a drive mechanism (Fig. 1) comprises an input shaft (between 42 and 40), wherein the input shaft is drivingly connected to the second output shaft (between 44 and 24) via a reduction gear set (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the drive mechanism disclose by the combination of HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT to comprise an input shaft, wherein the input shaft is drivingly connected to the second output shaft via a reduction gear set, as taught by SARTRE to allow for an additional means of power input (38) that could supplement the power of the electric motor (42), there by potentially lowering the power requirement of the electrical system, as the reduction gearing would allow for use of a lower power electric motor.
Regarding claim 5, HORI-YAMAZAKI-BELMONT-SARTRE discloses the reduction gear set (34) comprises a planetary gear mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060250902 A1: Teaches motor connected to transmission, then two clutches (5) that can connect to either the ICE or the Diff.
US 6008606 A: Use a dog clutch to connect electrical motor to drive wheels via differential
US 5845731 A: Teaches a flywheel (45) connected to an engine (12). An electric motor (20) connected to the engine or final drive (28).
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