DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed October 20, 2025.
The specification and claims 1, 3, 17 and 22 have been amended, claim 2 has been cancelled, and new claims 31-34 have been added.
Claims 1, 3, 17-25 and 31-34 are currently pending.
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 replacement drawing sheet was received on October 20, 2025. The drawings are acceptable.
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 17-25 and 31-34 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 17 remains unclear with regards to the location of the hub lock. Line 2 of the claim recites a single “drive axle”. Lines 3-6 recite the axle system comprising a wheel hub connecting device at “a first end of the drive axle” and comprising a drive spline defining an inner profile configured to receive and mate with the drive axle. This is understood to refer to the wheel hub connecting device 300 shown in Figs. 3 and 5 and described in paragraph [0064] which comprises the drive spline 502 having an inner profile 504 configured to receive and mate with one of the two drive axles 30 disposed on opposite sides of the differential 28 as shown in Fig. 1 and described in paragraph [0056]. However, lines 12-16 of claim 17 then recite a hub lock comprising a drive spline defining an inner profile configured to receive and mate with the drive axle. This is understood to refer to the hub lock 200 shown in Figs. 2 and 4 and described in paragraph [0061] which comprises the drive spline 402 having an inner profile 404 configured to receive and mate with one of the two drive axles 30. As best understood, the drive spline 402 associated the hub lock 200 and drive spline 502 associated the wheel hub connecting device 300 mate with different ones of the two axles 30 shown in Fig. 1. The current claim language implies that the wheel hub connecting device 300 and the hub lock 200 both have drive splines mating with the same axle.
Claims 18-21 are also indefinite since they are dependent on claim 17.
Claim 22 continues to be similarly unclear regarding the location of the first and second wheel hubs, which are said to be at first and second ends of the single drive axle. As best understood the first wheel hub is at an end of an axle 30 disposed on one side of the differential 28 shown in Fig. 1 while the second wheel hub is at an end of a different one of the axles disposed on an opposite side of the differential.
The newly added limitation in claim 22 regarding rotating a cap to actuate the module is unclear. Lines 4-7 of the claim define the module as comprising either a hub connecting device or a hub lock. The hub connecting device 300 is not actuated by rotating a cap.
Claim 25, which depends on claim 22, is similarly unclear in that it identifies the first module as being the hub connecting device. However, the hub connecting device 300 is not actuated by rotating a cap as now recited in claim 22. It is the hub lock 200, not the wheel hub connecting device 300, that can be actuated by rotating the cap as described in paragraphs [0075]-[0076].
Claims 23 and 24 are also indefinite since they are dependent on claim 22.
It is unclear which of the disclosed embodiments newly added claims 31-34 are directed to. Claim 31 recites a spring coupling the cap to the drive spline. Paragraph [0068] describes a spring 812 which couples the cap 816 and drive spline 802 as shown in Figs. 8A-8E. However, claim 31 depends on claim 1 which recites “a cage surrounding and engaged with the outer profile of the drive spline, the cage retaining the drive spline axially and radially” in lines 4-6. The cage recited in claim 1 is believed to correspond to the member 512 shown in the embodiment Fig. 5 and described in paragraph [0064]. As best understood the cage in claim 1 and the spring in claim 31 are alternative arrangements which both serve to retain the drive spline axially and radially and are used separately. There is no indication in the original disclosure that the cage and spring are used together in a single embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 9,382,951 (Reiner).
Regarding claim 22, it is noted that the claim only requires either a hub connecting device or a hub lock be inserted in one of the two wheel hubs. Reiner discloses a method wherein an axle system (see Fig. 1) comprises a drive axle (30) having a first wheel hub (the “wheel attachment interface” 36 associated with one of the two wheels 38) at a first end of the axle and a second wheel hub (the “wheel attachment interface” 36 associated with the other one of the wheels 38) at a second end of the axle, the first wheel hub and the second wheel hub each defining identical profiles (i.e., the inner surface of the wheel attachment interface, one of which is shown at 906 in Fig. 9) configured to receive a module, the module comprising a hub lock (clutch ring 208 in Fig. 9) configured to actuably engage and disengage a wheel hub to the drive axle (when the splines on the clutch ring engage the splines on drive gear 222 mounted on the axle which is identified as 900 in Fig. 9), the method comprising: inserting a first module (the clutch ring 208) into the first wheel hub; and actuating the first module rotating a cap (dial 212, see e.g. Figs. 2 and 7) coupled to the module and opposite the drive axle.
Regarding claim 24 the method of Reiner further comprises inserting a second module into the second wheel hub, the second module being identical to the first module. Note column 3, lines 18-25 which disclose the both of the axles 30 are provided with one of the locking hub systems 32.
Regarding claim 25 the locking hub systems 32 may be interpreted as a “hub connecting device” as broadly claimed, since they perform the function of engaging a wheel hub to the axle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,312,234 (Haggard) in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,382,951 (Reiner).
Regarding claim 22, Haggard discloses a method wherein an axle system (front axle 40, see Fig. 2) comprises a drive axle (including the half shafts 36 and stub shafts 50) having a first wheel hub (46) at a first end (right end in Fig. 2) of the axle and a second wheel hub (also labeled 46) at a second end (left end in Fig. 2) of the axle, the first wheel hub and the second wheel hub each defining identical profiles (splined orifices 48, see Figs. 3 and 4) configured to receive a module, the module comprising a hub connecting device (plug 62 in Figs. 2 and 3) configured to engage a wheel hub with the drive axle (see column 5, line 51 to column 6, line 4), or a hub lock (54 in Figs. 2 and 4) configured to actuably engage and disengage a wheel hub to the drive axle (see column 4, lines 7-28), the method comprising: inserting a first module (hub lock 54) into the first wheel hub (the hub lock 54 is inserted into the first wheel hub 46 disposed at the right end of the axle as seen in Fig. 2); and actuating the first module (hub lock 54) by manually or automatically moving the hub lock 54 axially between an engaged position where the teeth 58 and 60 are aligned and a disengaged position where the teeth 58 and 60 are not aligned (as shown in Fig. 4) to selectively couple and decouple the first wheel hub 46 to the axle as described in column 4, lines 58-66. Haggard does not disclose that manual actuation of the hub lock 54 is accomplished by rotating a cap coupled to the module and opposite the drive axle.
Reiner discloses a similar axle system including a locking hub system 200 (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 9) wherein a clutch ring 208, which is equivalent to the hub lock 54 of Haggard, which is actuated by rotating a cap (dial 212) coupled to the module and opposite the drive axle. See column 3, lines 36-63. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to actuate the hub lock of Haggard by rotating a cap in view of the teaching of Reiner that such an arrangement is effective for manually actuating a locking hub.
Regarding claim 23 the method of Haggard as modified in view of Reiner further comprises inserting a second module (plug 62, which corresponds to the hub connecting device in claim 22) into the second wheel hub (i.e., the wheel hub on the left side in Fig. 2), the second module being different from the first module.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3 are allowed.
Claims 17-21 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.
Claims 31-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include the limitations regarding the gasket recited in original claim 2 and is allowable for the reasons stated on page 8 of the Office action dated August 7, 2025.
Independent claim 17 recites the cage which distinguishes over the prior art for the reasons stated on pages 8-9 of the Office action dated August 7, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 Richard M. Lorence whose telephone number is 571-272-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday from 11:00 AM-7:00 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, John R. Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/RICHARD M LORENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617