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 1-5 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 1, line 12 recites the limitation “a transmission mechanism (221) that is able to switch an operation mode” (emphasis added). The phrase “is able to” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the claimed invention does the action, or if the action is even a required aspect of the invention. It is recommended that the claim be amended to state -- a transmission mechanism (221) configured to switch an operation mode--.
Claim 3, line 5 recites the limitation “an actuator configured to be able to move the sleeve” (emphasis added). The phrase “be able to” renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the claimed invention does the action, or if the action is even a required aspect of the invention. It is recommended that the claim be amended to state -- an actuator configured to move the sleeve--.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DAI et al. (CN 117565648 A).
Regarding claim 1, DAI discloses a drive device for a vehicle, comprising: a motor (003); a planetary gear (218) mechanism having a sun gear (217), a ring gear (223), a carrier (219), and a planetary gear (218), a drive force of the motor (003) being transmitted to the sun gear (217); a differential gear (101) to which the drive force output from the planetary gear (218) mechanism is transmitted; an output shaft (102, 103) that is mechanically connected to the differential gear (101) and outputs the drive force to an outside; a case (shown in Fig. 2) housing the planetary gear (218) mechanism and the differential gear (101); an oil pump (403) that circulates oil inside the case, the oil pump (403) being mechanically connected to the sun gear (217) and driven in conjunction with rotation of the sun gear (217); and a transmission mechanism (221, etc.) that is able to switch an operation mode of the planetary gear (218) mechanism among a plurality of modes, wherein the modes include: a first mode in which relative rotation of the ring gear (223) with respect to the case is prohibited and relative rotation of the ring gear (223) with respect to the carrier (219) is permitted; a second mode in which relative rotation of the ring gear (223) with respect to the carrier (219) is prohibited and relative rotation of the ring gear (223) with respect to the case is permitted; and a neutral mode in which relative rotation of the ring gear (223) and the carrier (219) with respect to the case is permitted and relative rotation between the ring gear (223) and the carrier (219) is permitted.
Regarding claim 2, DAI discloses a first shaft that is disposed coaxially with the motor (003) and driven by the motor (003); and a second shaft which is disposed parallel to the first shaft and to which a drive force of the first shaft is transmitted, wherein the sun gear (217) is disposed at a first end of the second shaft, and the oil pump (403) is connected to a second end of the second shaft.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAI et al. (CN 117565648 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of HVOLKA et al. (US 2010/0267508).
Regarding claim 3, DAI discloses the transmission mechanism includes a sleeve (221) that is disposed so as to be slidable in an axial direction of the ring gear, the case includes a first ring part (224) located coaxially with the ring gear; the carrier includes a second ring part (220) located coaxially with the ring gear; an outer circumferential spline is provided on an outer circumference of each of the ring gear, the first ring part, and the second ring part; an inner circumferential spline that engages with the outer circumferential spline of each of the ring gear, the first ring part, and the second ring part is provided on an inner circumference of the sleeve; the first mode is realized when, while the sleeve is in the first position, the sleeve is engaged with the ring gear and the first ring part and is not engaged with the second ring part; the second mode is realized when, while the sleeve is in the second position, the sleeve is engaged with the ring gear and the second ring part and is not engaged with the first ring part; and the neutral mode is realized when, while the sleeve is in the third position, the sleeve is engaged with the ring gear and is not engaged with the first ring part and the second ring part.
DAI does not disclose an actuator configured to be able to move the sleeve among a first position, a second position, and a third position.
HVOLKA teaches an actuator (8) configured to be able to move the sleeve (45) among a first position, a second position, and a third position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the sleeve of DAI be moved by an actuator, as taught by HVOLKA, as the use of a linear actuator to position a sleeve of a transmission devise is old and well known in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAI et al. (CN 117565648 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of BORG et al. (ES 2908635 T3).
Regarding claim 4, DAI discloses a control unit that controls operation of the transmission mechanism and the motor, but is silent as to the control unit being configured to, when the vehicle is activated, execute a pre-lubrication step of driving the motor in a state where the operation mode is set to the neutral mode.
BORG teaches a control unit configured to, when the vehicle is activated, execute a pre-lubrication step of driving the motor in a state where the operation mode is set to the neutral mode. See paragraphs [0012 and 0082].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of DAI to be configured to, when the vehicle is activated, execute a pre-lubrication step of driving the motor in a state where the operation mode is set to the neutral mode, such that if an upcoming engine start is anticipated, an electric oil pump is activated to prime the oil system so that oil has already reached the bearings, see BORG, paragraph [0012].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAI et al. (CN 117565648 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of KAMADA et al. (CN 102328653 A).
Regarding claim 5, DAI discloses a control unit, but is silent as to the control unit being configured to, when the vehicle is deactivated, execute a step of shifting the operation mode from the first mode or the second mode to the neutral mode in a state where the motor is stopped.
KAMADA teaches to the control unit being configured to, when the vehicle is deactivated, execute a step of shifting the operation mode from the first mode or the second mode to the neutral mode in a state where the motor is stopped. See paragraph [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to have the control unit of DAI be configured to, when the vehicle is deactivated, execute a step of shifting the operation mode from the first mode or the second mode to the neutral mode in a state where the motor is stopped, as taught by KAMADA to provide good starting responsiveness when performing a shift operation from driving gear to neutral gear at the moment the engine automatically stops.
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