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 and second tube mounts including “internal stops” as set forth in claims 1 and 16; the differential housing having a “round shape” center section and “elongate shape” tube mounts as set forth in claims 2, 8, and 16; “gears” being “mounted externally to the center section” as set forth in claims 10 and 17; and the first and second tube mounts receiving “square boxed tube axle arms” as set forth in claim 14; 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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 set forth the first and second tube mounts including “internal stops” therein. However, the drawings fail to show such a feature; and in fact, show the opposite (i.e. external stops 235 and 237, although it is unclear whether these external stops are part of the axle housing or the axle tubes themselves). Furthermore, the originally filed specification fails to mention “internal stops”. Therefore, this limitation is considered to be new matter.
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 10-20 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 11 is indefinite due to the fact that the term “via” is generally narrative and indefinite, as this term fails to describe any physical structure of the invention.
Claim 10 and 17 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the limitation that “gears are mounted externally to the center section”. Such a feature is not shown in the drawings, any physical structure capable of performing this limitation are set forth in the claims.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (0,931,451).
Per claim 1, Miller shows an axle assembly including a modular differential housing including a Salisbury style center section 3, formed as a single continuous piece, including tube mounts 4-5, integrally formed with the center section 3, that receive tube assemblies 1-2 that may be press fit therein. The axle assembly of Miller shows the tube mounts 4-5 including “internal stops” inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention.
Per claim 2, the center section 3 comprises a round shape, and the tube mounts 4-5 have elongate shapes.
Per claim 3, a plurality of ribs of triangular shape are physically coupled to the center section 3 and one of the tube mounts 4-5.
Per claim 4, Miller discloses that the tube assemblies 1-2 may be puddle welded to one of the tube mounts 4-5.
Per claims 5-6, the axle assembly of Miller may be used on a variety of vehicles with different loads, while the center section 3 remains the same (i.e. the length and/or dimensional size of the tube assemblies 1-2 may be different dependent upon the vehicle on which the assembly is mounted).
Per claim 7, the assembly direction is normal to a central axis of a drive axle (which would be mounted in stub sleeve 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Figures 2 and 3A-3C show the differential housing “having a round shape” center section and “elongate shape” tube mounts. However, this is not exactly the case. Namely, while it is true that a circular or round shape may be seen on the center housing 230 in the form of rim 304 (i.e. the mounting area for cover 238), the claims do not clearly specify that this specific portion of the center section is being referred to (i.e. the overall shape of the center section is actually more ovoid in shape due to the included perimeter shapes of the integrally formed tube mounts and ribs). In addition, the shape of the tube mounts are cylindrical, but not “elongate” with respect to the rest of the center housing body (in this case, the tube mounts appear to have more of a square frontal shape, i.e. having equal width and height).
The Applicant argues that “the Office does not explain how the current drawings do not sufficiently show” the “gears being mounted externally to the center section”. The Applicant argues that Figure 2 shows “pinion 242, which is mounted externally through cover portion 238 of the central housing”. However, Figure 2 only clearly shows an apparent toroidal object that is described as being a “pinion”. No structure is actually shown of where the gear portion of the “pinion” is actually located with respect to the central housing.
The Applicant argues that “drawings of the square boxed tube axle arms are not essential for a proper understanding of the invention by one of ordinary skill in the art”. However, this is not the case, given the fact that the tube mounts 230 and 236 are clearly shown as having a cylindrical shape. Therefore, it is unclear how “square boxed axle arms” would actually mount thereto; thus such structure IS essential for understanding the invention as claimed.
The Applicant argues that claims 1 and 11 have been amended to remove the term “via”. However, this is only partially the case, since claim 11 still includes the indefinite term “via”.
The Applicant argues that the limitation of “gears being mounted externally to the center section” is not indefinite, as it is “supported by non-limiting examples, in both the figures and the specification”. However, neither the claims nor the specification set forth any description of the actual location(s) of the gears with respect to any elements of the claimed invention. The disclosure of a pinion that “may extend through a cover portion 238 of the central housing” is insufficient to clearly indicate the exact location of the gears with respect to the central housing.
The Applicant argues that Miller lacks “internal stops within the first and second tube mounts”. However, it should be noted that this newly added limitation is considered to be new matter, given the fact that the drawings fail to show stops located internally within the tube mounts; and the originally filed specification lacks any description of “internal stops”. Furthermore, the drawings only show externally located stops 235 and 237 (which appear to be a portion of the axle tubes 202 and 204 and not the tube mounts 234 and 236). Therefore, Miller meets this limitation inasmuch as the Applicant’s invention does.
The Applicant argues that the center section of Miller is not a “modular Salisbury style center section formed as a singular, continuous piece”. The Applicant argues that Miller instead shows a “banjo-style housing with a removable cap that forms a detachable section of the casing”. First, by the Applicant’s argument, the claimed invention also does not meet this limitation due to the removable cover 238. Second, the central housing of Miller does not qualify as a “banjo-type” housing, given the fact that the axle tubes 1-2 are not integrally formed therewith. Namely, Miller clearly shows the central housing 3 including integral tube mounts 4-5 into which the separate axle tubes 1-2 are mounted, meeting the known and well-established definition of a Salisbury axle housing.
The Applicant argues that the tube mounts of Miller are not “integrally formed with and extending from opposite sides of the center section.” The Applicant argues that the sleeves 4-5 are “separate components that are secured to the casing” and “not integrally formed with it”. However, it appears that the Applicant is misinterpreting the reference. Namely, Figures 1 and 2 of Miller clearly show the sleeves (i.e. tube mounts) 4-5 as being an integral part of the central housing 3 due to the same cross-hatching being used for these three elements.
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 JASON R BELLINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-6684. 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.
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights