Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 7 -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`Remarks
`
`Reconsideration of this Application is respectfully requested.
`
`Upon entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1—7 are pending in the application, with
`
`claims 1, 5, and 7 being the independent claims. Claim 1 is sought to be amended. New claims 5, 6,
`
`and 7 are sought to be added. These changes are believed to introduce no new matter, and their
`
`entry is respectfully requested.
`
`Based on the above amendment and the following remarks, Applicant respectfully requests
`
`that the Examiner reconsider all outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites the limitation
`
`"an axial piston hydraulic pump" in line 2 and then proceeds to refer to the axial piston hydraulic
`
`pump as a hydraulic pump in the proceeding line, line 3. Claim 1 has been amended to recite “a
`
`hydraulic pump” as needed. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that this objection be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being over US. Patent No. 7,073,330
`
`to Hauser ("Hauser") in view of US. Patent No. 6,968,686 to Okada ("Okada"). Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses.
`
`Hauser discloses a hydrostatic drive system for a vehicle. (Hauser, 1:13-17, claim 1.)
`
`However, Hauser does not disclose the elements recited in claim 1. For example, claim 1 recites
`
`“wherein the transaxle casing includes a pair of casing holes each of which penetrates each of the
`
`side walls between an inside of the transaxle casing and an outside of the transaxle casing” and
`
`“wherein the pair of trunnion shafts are passed through the respective casing holes to be pivotally
`
`supported by the respective side walls of the transaxle casing.” For reference, Figure 7 of the
`
`present application has been reproduced below, with trunnion shafts 45 extending through casing
`
`holes 11c visible.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 8 -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`2
`
`N,
`
`:23?
`
`
`
`(Figure 7, Annotated.)
`
`Hauser does not disclose these claimed elements. For example, Hauser does not disclose the
`
`claimed “pair of casing holes” that “each of which penetrat[ing] each of the side walls between an
`
`inside of the transaxle casing and an outside of the transaxle casing”, i.e., that extend from the
`
`exterior of the casing to the interior of the casing. As shown below in reproduced Figure 18 of
`
`Hauser, Hauser teaches an opening in the casing that is aligned with the right-hand trunnion shaft.
`
`However, only a single opening is shown, not the claimed “pair of casing holes.” Further, the single
`
`opening in Hauser is not capable of passing the trunnion shaft through it simply because it is too
`
`small.
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 9 -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`1 8%..
`
`KM
`
`
`
`33%?
`
`FEE. 18
`
`(Hauser, Fig. 18.)
`
`Instead, the structure of Hauser is arranged in this manner because Hauser incorporates a
`
`removable sidewall (“second casing member 30L”). (Hauser, 4:4-18.) This sidewall is removably
`
`fixed to the main casing along vertical junction 32 by fasteners. (10’) In Hauser this sidewall can be
`
`removed to allow access to the swash plate, which can then be removed through the opening that
`
`removal of the sidewall reveals.
`
`This structural arrangement of Hauser is the exact arrangement discussed in the present
`
`application in the Background section as being well-known in the prior art: “[a]fter the swash plate
`
`is installed in the inside space of the transaXle casing by joumaling one trunnion shaft by a side wall
`
`of the transaXle casing, a cover is detachably attached to cover the opening and to journal the other
`
`trunnion shaft.” (Specification, 110004.) The present application disclosed that such an arrangement
`
`“increase[es] component parts in number and costs, and increase[es] labor for installing and
`
`removing the swash plate into and from the transaXle casing.” (10’) Thus, Hauser simply disclosed a
`
`well-known structural arrangement of a swash plate in an HST, and did not disclose the claimed
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- lO -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`“pair of casing holes” that are capable of passing the trunnion shaft through to the exterior of the
`
`casing. Further, the trunnion shafts of Hauser are not “joined to the swash plate separably from the
`
`swash plate” as recited in claim 1 because, as shown above, the swash plate and trunnion shafts in
`
`Hauser are an integral structural element that is removed through the sidewall.
`
`Okada does not remedy the deficiencies of Hauser. Okada discloses a hydrostatic
`
`transmission for a vehicle. (Okada, 1:12-19.) As shown below in Figure 3 reproduced from Okada,
`
`Okada discloses controlling the swash plate using a speed control shaft 60 that is connected to a
`
`connection arm member 62. (Okada, 5:45-67, Fig. 3.) Connection arm member 62 is, in turn,
`
`connected to swash plate 13 (at engaging portion 13a). (Id) Accordingly, Okada only disclose one
`
`casing hole and thus fails to disclose “a pair of casing holes” as recited in claim 1.
`
`
`
`(Okada, Fig. 3 .)
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 11 -
`
`MURASHIMA er al.
`
`Further, Okada fails to disclose “a movable swash plate and a pair of trunnion shafts coaxial
`
`to each other, the pair of trunnion shafts being joined to the swash plate separably from the swash
`
`plate” as recited in claim 1. As shown above, the swash plate and trunnion shaft of Okada are not
`
`coaxial to each other because the trunnion shaft is connected to the swash plate through connection
`
`arm member 62. Further, the trunnion shaft of Okada is not “joined to the swash plate,” but is
`
`instead joined to connection arm member 62. Therefore, Okada does remedy the deficiencies of
`
`Hauser. Moreover, it would not have been obvious to modify the structure of either Hauser or
`
`Okada to provide the structure recited in claim 1 because such a modification would require a
`
`significant redesign that would modify the method of operation of both Hauser and Okada. Further,
`
`there is no suggestion or motivation to perform such a redesign. Accordingly, Hauser and Okada do
`
`not disclose or render obvious claim 1. Claims 3 and 4 depend on claim 1 and are allowable for at
`
`least the same reasons. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully request that these rejections be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected case claim, but would be
`
`allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitation of the base claims and any
`
`intervening claims. Claims 3 and 4 have not been amended in this reply. Claim 1 is allowable for at
`
`least the reasons discussed above, and thus this objection has been rendered moot. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully requests that this objection be withdrawn.
`
`Newly Added Claims
`
`Claim 5 is allowable claim 3 rewritten as an independent claim, and claim 6 is allowable
`
`claim 4 rewritten to depend on claim 5. Accordingly, claims 5 and 6 are in allowable condition.
`
`Claim 7 is similar to claim 1, and includes substantially all of the same elements. Therefore,
`
`claim 7 is allowable over the prior art for at least the same reasons discussed above regarding claim
`
`1. Claim 7 further includes the element “wherein the swash plate is configured to be removable
`
`from the transaXle casing in a direction along the rotary aXis of the hydraulic pump after removal of
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 06664980003
`
`

`

`Reply to Office Action of March 8, 2019
`
`Application No. 15/487,058
`
`- 12 -
`
`MURASHIMA er a].
`
`the trunnion shafts.” This element clarifies the removability of the swash plate, which is not taught
`
`in the prior art as discussed above. Accordingly, claim 7 is in allowable condition.
`
`Conclusion
`
`All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
`
`accommodated, or rendered moot. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner
`
`reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn. Applicant
`
`believes that a full and complete reply has been made to the outstanding Off1ce Action and, as such,
`
`the present application is in condition for allowance. If the Examiner believes, for any reason, that
`
`personal communication will expedite prosecution of this application, the Examiner is invited to
`
`telephone the undersigned at the number provided.
`
`Prompt and favorable consideration of this Amendment and Reply is respectfully requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & Fox P.L.L.C.
`
`/Mark W. Rygiel/
`
`Mark W. Rygiel
`Attorney for Applicant
`Registration No. 45,871
`
`Date:
`
`June 7 2019
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW.
`Washington, DC. 20005-3934
`(202) 371-2600
`
`Atty. Dkt. No. 0666.4980003
`
`