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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final Rejection filed February 3, 2026. Claims 13, 16-17, 20-24, 27, and 30-34, are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The examiner recognizes that all original rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) previously stated for the original claim 24 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant unless stated otherwise below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 16-17, 20-24, 27, and 30-34, have been considered but are not persuasive
Applicant argues that none of Hughes, Dumas, or Boddy, teaches the arrangement and method set forth in claim 13.
Applicant argues that Dumas does not teach the speed differential between a drive shaft and an output shaft.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arrangement of Dumas teaches that the out of a drive shaft is sent to a limited-slip differential which then sends the power through output shafts to the two wheels. When turning the power is divided in-between the two wheels, where the inside wheel is receiving little power (mostly disengaged) and the outside wheel is receiving most of the power (mostly engaged). Due to the fact the outside wheel is receiving most, if not all, of the power from the drive shaft, the output shaft associated with said wheel is rotating at the same speed as the drive shaft of the vehicle (i.e. max of 55 rpm). Additionally, because the disclosure of paragraph [0097] of Dumas teaches a range of up to 50 RPM difference between the wheels (as the output shaft of the inside, mostly disengaged shaft, rotates at a minimum of 5 rpm), the output shaft associated with inside wheel is rotating at a speed with up to a 50 RPM difference of the drive shaft (as it can be rotating at the same speed as the output shaft of the outside wheel), therefore satisfying the limitations of the claim 13 as written.
Applicant argues neither Hughes, Dumas nor Boddy, teaches that “when a motor vehicle traverses a curve, the clutch attached to the wheel on the outside of the curve is overlocked to an extent that corresponds to a torque setting accuracy of the clutches and the drive torque.”
Specifically, applicant states that Boddy teaches transferring torque to the non-slipping wheel in a slip mode and not abandoning this mode. Applicant goes on to state that Boddy does not discuss any form of accuracy with regard to the degree of locking of a clutch This is not comparable to the travel state set forth in claim 13 where, when wheel slip is occurring, micro-slip control is abandoned and only the outer wheel clutch is locked, and that locking is done to a certain degree, which is not taught by Boddy.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the micro-slip control mode being, at least temporarily, abandoned) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument that Boddy does not disclose overlocking the clutch of a wheel on the outside of a curve to an extent that the corresponds to a torque setting accuracy of the clutches and the drive torque. As stated by paragraph [0031] of Boddy, the system hopes to improve upon conventional limited-slip differentials “having an output-locking clutch that engages in a virtual ON/OFF manner” by utilizing a system which allows for more accurate locking of clutches at the wheels which enables the ability for partial locking of the clutches with a certain degree of accuracy beyond a digital on/off state, while also being capable of fully locking a clutch to allow for a no-slip condition (i.e. over-locking) to occur as described in paragraphs [0044]-[0046] of Boddy. The system of Boddy, as described in paragraph [0044], is fully capable of abandoning a partial slip mode of the differential system by use of an “on/off position” signal which allows for the system to partially or fully lock the rotation of a half shaft as needed and as required by the limitations of claim 13.
Applicant argues that Boddy teaches away from Dumas and therefore there would be no reason for a POSITA to look to Boddy to modify Dumas.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Dumas is drawn to a limited-slip differential system for controlling rotation of two output shafts with min and max wheel slips for each wheel). Boddy is drawn to a vehicle differential assembly that includes hydraulically-actuated clutches which make up a limited-slip differential for allowing wheel slip while cornering. As both references are drawn to the same technology of limited-slip differentials for the same purpose of increasing vehicle stability during vehicle operation, there is no reason as to why a POSITA would not look to Boddy to modify the system of Dumas.
The rejection of record is therefore maintained and recited below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13, 16-17, 23-24, 27, and 32, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US 20170227103; hereinafter Hughes, already of record), in view of Dumas et al. (US 20200256444; hereinafter Dumas, already of record), and further in view of Boddy (US 20070060436, already of record).
Regarding Claim 24,
Hughes teaches
...the apparatus provided for a drive system for at least one axle of a motor vehicle, (Hughes: Paragraph [0027]) the drive system having at least one drive unit assigned exclusively to the axle, and not additionally to any further axle, such that only the wheels of the axle are drivable by way of an output torque provided by the drive unit, (Hughes: Paragraph [0027]; The vehicle configurations for the described system are either front wheel drive or rear wheel drive which mean that, in either configuration, only one axle is being used as a drive axle.) a drive shaft driven by the drive unit, (Hughes: Paragraph [0007]-[0008], [0036], [0046], FIG. 7 (A-D); The first clutch is what connects the drive shaft with the torque vectoring system and the axles. When the first clutch is disengaged, the torque vectoring system is activated and power is distributed to the wheel axles based on how the drive axle clutches are locked.) a first output shaft having a first wheel (Hughes: Paragraph [0038], FIG. 3; Axel shaft (A1)) and a second output shaft having a second wheel, (Hughes: Paragraph [0040], FIG. 3; Axle shaft (A2)) and a first clutch connecting the drive shaft to the first output shaft, (Hughes: Paragraph [0045]-[0046], FIG. 7B; Second Clutch (162)) and a second clutch connecting the drive shaft to the second output shaft, (Hughes: Paragraph [0045]-[0046], FIG. 7B; Third Clutch (178)) … the instructions including instructions to:
...
b) vary at least one locking rate of the clutch connected to the at least one slipping wheel, wherein the first clutch has an adjustable first locking rate and the second clutch has an adjustable second locking rate; (Hughes: Paragraph [0046]) and
...
Hughes does not teach
An apparatus comprising a processor and a medium storing instructions executable by the processor,…wherein the instructions include instructions for controlling the clutches,
...
a) determine that a wheel spin has occurred while in a first travel state and then exit the first travel state and establish an unstable second travel state in which at least one first wheel has a first slip or a second wheel has a second slip;
…
c) when the motor vehicle traverses a curve, lock the clutch attached to the wheel on the outside of the curve to a locking rate corresponding to at least the sum of a torque setting accuracy of the clutches and an output torque of the at least one drive unit, and wherein the instructions further include instructions such that clutches at least at certain operating points are operated with a micro-slip control in which a speed differential between the drive shaft and the output shaft at the respective clutch is set at more than zero revolutions per minute and at most 50 revolutions per minute, and wherein the instructions further include instructions such that the drive torque is decreased when a total varied locking torque is less than the drive torque.
However in the same field of endeavor, Dumas teaches
An apparatus comprising a processor and a medium storing instructions executable by the processor, (Dumas: Paragraph [0030]) … wherein the instructions include instructions for controlling the clutches, (Dumas: Paragraph [0113], [0129], [0132])
...
a) determine that a wheel spin has occurred while in the first travel state and then exit the first travel state (Dumas: Paragraph [0113]; “In a sequence 450, operation 452 comprises monitoring signals and measurements from the wheel speed sensors 376, 378 for eventually detecting that the wheel slip 406 exceeds the permissible slipping range defined by the maximum and minimum allowed wheel slips 408 and 410. Following such detection, the control unit 370 controls a loading of the LSD 302 at operation 454.”) and establish an unstable second travel state in which at least one first wheel has a first slip or a second wheel has a second slip; (Dumas: Paragraph [0113]; “To this end, the clutch 374 of the LSD 302 is compressed to reduce a rotational speed difference of the output shafts 322 and 324, which are operatively connected to the half shafts 98 and further to the left and right driven wheels 44. Compression of the clutch 374 of the LSD 302 is made by the electric motor 288, which rotates the gear set 276 that in turn translates its rotational movement into an axial motion of the ball ramp 278 to apply a torque TqDiff on the clutch 374.”)
…
...and wherein the instructions further include instructions such that clutches at least at certain operating points are operated with a micro-slip control in which a speed differential between the drive shaft and the output shaft at the respective clutch is set at more than zero revolutions per minute and at most 50 revolutions per minute, (Dumas: Paragraph [0097]; The allowed minimum rotation speed for the slower wheel is 5 RPM and the maximum rotation speed for the faster wheel is 55 RPM, therefore the range of difference of speed between the two wheels is a range of 0-50 RPM.) and wherein the instructions further include instructions such that the drive torque is decreased when a total varied locking torque is less than the drive torque. (Dumas: Paragraph [0114], [0155])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system of Hughes with the processor and instructions of Dumas for the benefit of controlling a limited slip differential based on a steering angle of a vehicle. (Dumas: Paragraph [0002])
Hughes, in view of Dumas, does not teach
c) when the motor vehicle traverses a curve, lock the clutch attached to the wheel on the outside of the curve to a locking rate corresponding to at least the sum of a torque setting accuracy of the clutches and an output torque of the at least one drive unit,....
However in the same field of endeavor, Boddy teaches
...
c) when the motor vehicle traverses a curve, lock the clutch attached to the wheel on the outside of the curve (Boddy: Paragraph [0044]-[0045], [0047]-[0048], FIG. 8B and 8C) to a locking rate corresponding to at least the sum of a torque setting accuracy of the clutches and an output torque of the at least one drive unit,... (Boddy: Paragraph [0017]-[0018])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system of Hughes and Dumas with the outside wheel clutch locking of Boddy for the benefit of allowing differing rotational speed between a pair of outputs. (Boddy: Paragraph [0005])
Regarding Claim 27,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, teaches
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the instructions further include instructions such that the locking rate of a clutch connected to a non-slipping wheel is increased and the locking rate of a clutch connected to a slipping wheel is decreased. (Boddy: Paragraph [0044]-[0045], FIG. 8B and 8C)
The motivation to combine Hughes, Dumas and Boddy, is the same as stated for Claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 32,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, teaches
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the instructions further include instructions such that a torque differential between the drive shaft and the output shaft of more than zero revolutions per minute and of at most 5 revolutions per minute is set at the micro-slip control on the respective clutch. (Dumas: Paragraph [0097]; When the steering angle is zero (i.e. the vehicle is going straight), the torque differential is essentially but not exactly zero RPM.)
The motivation to combine Hughes, Dumas and Boddy, is the same as stated for Claim 24 above.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is analogous to Claim 24 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...wherein in a stable first travel state the clutches are controlled in such a way that a total locking torque of both clutches corresponds at least or substantially to the drive torque provided by way of the drive shaft, (Boddy: Paragraph [0031]) wherein the clutches at least at the first travel state are operated with a micro-slip control in which a speed differential between the drive shaft and the output shaft at the respective clutch is set at more than zero revolutions per minute and at most 50 revolutions per minute,... (Dumas: Paragraph [0097]; The allowed minimum rotation speed for the slower wheel is 5 RPM and the maximum rotation speed for the faster wheel is 55 RPM, therefore the range of difference of speed between the two wheels is a range of 0-50 RPM.)
Therefore the claim is rejected under the same premise as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is analogous to Claim 27 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is analogous to Claim 28 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is analogous to Claim 32 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 32.
Claims 20-22 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, as applied to claims 13, 16-17, 23-24, 27-28, and 32, above, and further in view of Hoeck et al. (US 20080029328; hereinafter Hoeck, already of record).
Regarding Claim 30,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, teaches
The apparatus of claim 24,...
Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, does not teach
...wherein the instructions further include instructions such that a distribution of the locking rates for forming the total locking torque for the first travel state is calculated as a function of at least one of the following parameters: a steering angle of a steering wheel of the motor vehicle; speed of the motor vehicle; yaw rate; or torque of the drive shaft.
However in the same field of endeavor, Hoeck teaches
...wherein the instructions further include instructions such that a distribution of the locking rates for forming the total locking torque for the first travel state is calculated as a function of at least one of the following parameters: a steering angle of a steering wheel of the motor vehicle; speed of the motor vehicle; yaw rate; or torque of the drive shaft. (Hoeck: Paragraph [0149]-[0158])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system apparatus of Hughes, Dumas, and Boddy, with the locking rate distribution parameters of Hoeck for the benefit of improving the drivetrain for a four-wheel drive motor vehicle and an improved method for controlling a drivetrain of said type. (Hoeck: Paragraph [0022])
Regarding Claim 31,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, further in view of Boddy, and even further in view of Hoeck, teaches
The apparatus of claim 24, wherein the instructions further include instructions such that, by activating each clutch, wheels of the common axle of the motor vehicle are respectively connectable in a torque-transmitting manner to the drive unit. (Hoeck: Paragraph [0090]-[0093])
The motivation to combine Hughes, Dumas, Boddy, and Hoeck, is the same as stated for Claim 30 above.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 30 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim is analogous to Claim 31 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 22,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, further in view of Boddy, and even further in view of Hoeck, teaches
The method of claim 13, wherein the drive unit is an electric machine. (Hoeck: Paragraph [0009])
The motivation to combine Hughes, Dumas, Boddy, and Hoeck, is the same as stated for Claim 24 above.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes, in view of Dumas, and further in view of Boddy, as applied to claims 13, 16-17, 23-24, 27-28, and 32, above, and further in view of Billig et al. (US 20060113135; hereinafter Billig).
Regarding Claim 34,
Hughes, in view of Dumas, further in view of Boddy, teach
The apparatus of claim 24...
Hughes, in view of Dumas, further in view of Boddy, do not teach
The apparatus of claim 24...
However in the same field of endeavor, Billig teaches
...wherein the axle does not include a differential and the two clutches are controlled to compensate for different speeds of the wheels. (Billig: Paragraph [0011]-[0012], [0021]-[0022])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the drive system apparatus of Hughes, Dumas, and Boddy, with the different wheel speeds being solely compensated by clutches of Billig for the benefit of increasing the traction characteristics and of the stability characteristics of the vehicle. (Billig: paragraph [0012])
Regarding Claim 33, the claim is analogous to Claim 34 limitations and is therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 34.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663