DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 15th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the R.C.E. filed on June 24th, 2026 for application no. 18/293,244 filed on January 29th, 2024. Claims 1 and 3-17 are pending. In the present amendment, claims 1, 4, 6, 9 and 17 are amended, and claim 2 is canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 24th, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 7, the recited term “closing movement” is interpreted as “In particular, another possible arrangement consists in that the actuating element and the coupling element are supported so as to be rotatable relative to one another, and the actuating device is formed in such a way that a rotational movement occurs between the coupling element and actuating element only in a closing movement. “Closing movement” within the framework of the present application means the changeover from the decoupling state to the coupling state” (emphasis added) as disclosed at paragraphs [0021] of the Applicant’s published application.
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 and 3-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1 (lines 9-11), in the recitation of “the actuating device is configured to adjust an actuating element in the coupling state and the decoupling state at a distance from the coupling element so that there is no contact between the actuating element and the coupling element” it is unclear how there is no contact between the actuating element (9) and the coupling element (8). As seen in Figs. 1-2, the actuating element (9) and the engagement portion of the coupling element (8) are clearly in contact. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3 (line 1), in the recitation of “wherein the actuating device has an actuator” the difference between the “actuator” recited in claim 3 and the “actuating device” recited in claim 3 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, in the recitation of “wherein the actuating device…which is configured to move the coupling element into the decoupling state, or to move the coupling element into the coupling state and decoupling state” it is unclear how claim 3 narrows the recitation of “an actuating device configured to move a coupling element into a coupling state to couple the inner differential carrier with the drive gear and move the coupling element into a decoupling state to decouple the inner differential carrier from the drive gear” (claim 1, lines 5-7). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4 (lines 1-2), in the recitation of “wherein the actuating device comprises a claw element” the difference between the “actuating element” recited in claim 1 (line 9) and the “claw element” recited in claim 4 (line 2) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein the actuating element is a claw element” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 4 (lines 4-5), in the recitation of “the claw element in at least one end position in such a way that the engagement portion of the coupling element is at a distance from walls of the slot” the difference between the “distance” recited in claim 1 (line 10) and the “distance” recited in claim 4 (line 5) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “the claw element in at least one end position in such a way that the engagement portion of the coupling element is at [[a]] the distance from walls of the slot” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 5 (line 3), in the recitation of “generated by an actuator” the difference between the “actuating device” recited in claim 1 and the “actuator” recited in claim 5 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “generated by the actuating device” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 8, the recitation of “wherein the actuating device and the spring element, are arranged at least partially inside of the drive gear” is generally unclear. As seen in Figs. 1-3, the actuating device (not shown) is presumably outside the drive gear (3) and the spring element (10) is arranged completely inside the drive gear (3). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “wherein is arranged
Regarding Claim 9 (lines 10-12), in the recitation of “the actuating device is configured to adjust an actuating element in the coupling state and the decoupling state at a distance from the coupling element so that there is no contact between the actuating element and the coupling element” it is unclear how there is no contact between the actuating element (9) and the coupling element (8). As seen in Figs. 1-2, the actuating element (9) and the engagement portion of the coupling element (8) are clearly in contact. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-8 and 10-17 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swinger (US 11,231,098).
Regarding Claim 1, Swinger teaches a coupling device (Figs. 1-2, “releasable clutch” 30) for a differential (“differential disconnect assembly” 10) of a motor vehicle, comprising:
a drive gear (“ring gear” 12); and
an inner differential carrier (“differential gear nest” 24) which at least partially surrounds at least one bevel differential side gear (“side gears” 20) and at least one bevel differential pinion (“pinion gears” 22);
an actuating device (“return spring” 32, “spline ring” 26, “collar” 46 and “actuator” 28) configured to move a coupling element (26) into a coupling state (position seen in Fig. 2) to couple the inner differential carrier (24) with the drive gear (12) and move the coupling element (26) into a decoupling state (position seen in Fig. 1) to decouple the inner differential carrier (24) from the drive gear (12),
wherein:
the actuating device (32, 26, 46, 28) is configured to adjust an actuating element (46) in the coupling state (Fig. 2) and the decoupling state (Fig. 1) at a distance from the coupling element (26) so that there is no contact between the actuating element (46) and the coupling element (26; separated by “radial plate” 47; see 112(b) rejection above),
wherein the coupling device (30) is configured to couple an outer differential carrier (“differential cover” 16 and “differential housing” 14), which is coupled to the drive gear (12) in the coupling state (Fig. 2), to the inner differential carrier (24),
wherein an engagement portion of the coupling element (outside portion of 26 adjacent 47) is arranged directly facing a first radial face (outer radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14) and a sliding sleeve of the coupling element (inside portion of 26 adjacent 32) is arranged directly facing a second radial face (inner radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14) opposite the first radial face (outer radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14).
Regarding Claim 3, Swinger teaches the coupling device according to claim 1,
wherein the actuating device (Figs. 1-2; 32, 26, 46, 28) has an actuator (28) which is configured to move the coupling element (26) into the decoupling state (Fig. 1), or to move the coupling element (26) into the coupling state (Fig. 2) and decoupling state (Fig. 1; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 5, Swinger teaches the coupling device according to claim 1,
wherein the actuating device (Figs. 1-2; 32, 26, 46, 28) has a spring element (32) configured to transmit to the coupling element (26) an engagement force against a disengagement movement generated by an actuator (28; col. 7, line 24 – “This system is essentially mono-stable since the spline ring 26 normally stays in the first position of FIG. 1 unless and until the actuator 28 is activated to move the spline ring 26 to the second position of FIG. 2. When the actuator 28 is deactivated, the spline ring 26 then returns to the first position (FIG. 1) due to the biasing of the spring 32. Further, the normal position of FIG. 1 preferably is the open disconnect position, and the active position of FIG. 2 is the closed connection position. It will be understood that the configuration of the spline ring 26 and spring 32 can be modified so as to be configured similar to the equivalent components of FIGS. 3 and 4 to operate with the actuator 28 so that a normal position is a closed position and an active position is an open position” emphasis added; see Figs. 3-4 as well; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 6, Swinger teaches the coupling device according to claim 1,
wherein the actuating device (Figs. 1-2; 32, 26, 46, 28) has a spring element (32) is configured to push or pull the spring element (32) during a movement of the coupling element (26; see Figs. 1-2) into the coupling state (Fig. 2; see col. 7, line 24 passage above).
Regarding Claim 7, Swinger teaches the coupling device according to claim 1,
wherein the actuating element (Figs. 1-2, 46) and the coupling element (26) are supported so as to be rotatable relative to one another (col 7, line 12 – “drive unit 44 remains stationary while the pusher 45, collar 46 and plate 47 can move axially but preferably do not rotate with the spline ring 26 during rotation of the ring gear 12”),
wherein the actuating device (32, 26, 46, 28) is formed in such a way that a rotational movement occurs between the coupling element (26) and actuating element (46) in a closing movement (see Figs. 1-2; see col. 7, line 12 passage above).
Regarding Claim 8, Swinger teaches the coupling device according to claim 5,
wherein the actuating device (Figs. 1-2; 32, 26, 46, 28) and the spring element (32), are arranged at least partially inside of the drive gear (12; see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding Claim 9, Swinger teaches a differential (Figs. 1-2; 10) for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a coupling (30) comprising:
a drive gear (12); and
an inner differential carrier (24) which at least partially surrounds at least one bevel differential side gear (20) and at least one bevel differential pinion (22);
an actuating device (32, 26, 46, 28) configured to move a coupling element (26) into a coupling state (Fig. 2) to couple the inner differential carrier (24) with the drive gear (12) and move the coupling element (26) into a decoupling state (Fig. 1) to decouple the inner differential carrier (24) from the drive gear (12),
wherein either:
the actuating device (32, 26, 46, 28) is configured to adjust an actuating element (46) in the coupling state (Fig. 2) and the decoupling state (Fig. 1) at a distance from the coupling element (26) so that there is no contact between the actuating element (46) and the coupling element (26; separated by 47; see 112(b) rejection above), or
the actuating element (46) and the coupling element (26) are arranged on an input side (see Figs. 1-2);
wherein the coupling (30) is configured to couple an outer differential carrier (16, 14), which is coupled to the drive gear (12) in the coupling state (Fig. 2), to the inner differential carrier (24),
wherein an engagement portion of the coupling element (outside portion of 26 adjacent 47) is arranged directly facing a first radial face (outer radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14) and a sliding sleeve of the coupling element (inside portion of 26 adjacent 32) is arranged directly facing a second radial face (inner radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14) opposite the first radial face (outer radial face of 14) of the outer differential carrier (16, 14).
Regarding Claim 14, Swinger teaches a motor vehicle comprising the differential (Figs. 1-2, 10) according to claim 9 (col. 5, line 19 – “In more detail, the improved gear box 11 is provided on a vehicle and has the rotatable ring gear 12 disposed in the outer housing 19 which is stationary and defines an interior compartment in which the above-described components are housed. The gear box or axle 11 is operatively connected to the drive shaft of the vehicle drive train and engine or motor, wherein the ring gear 12 is rotatably driven by the drivetrain”).
Regarding Claim 15, Swinger teaches the coupling device of claim 1,
wherein the inner differential carrier (Figs. 1-2, 24) is a bevel differential pinion carrier (24).
Regarding Claim 16, Swinger teaches the coupling device of claim 1,
wherein the actuating element (Figs. 1-2, 46) and the coupling element (26) are arranged on an input side (see Figs. 1-2).
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.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swinger (US 11,231,098), in view of Liu (US 12,025,213).
Regarding Claim 10, Swinger teaches a transmission device (not shown) comprising the differential (10; col. 5, line 19 – “In more detail, the improved gear box 11 is provided on a vehicle…The gear box or axle 11 is operatively connected to the drive shaft of the vehicle drive train and engine or motor, wherein the ring gear 12 is rotatably driven by the drivetrain”),
wherein the differential (10) is configured according to claim 1.
Swinger does not teach “a step-down gear unit”.
Liu teaches a drivetrain (Fig. 1, “drive motor” 1 and “gear mechanism” 2) comprising an electric motor (1) and a step-down gear unit (2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the drivetrain taught by Swinger with the drivetrain taught by Liu, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in substituting known elements, and have the obvious advantage of providing an efficient drivetrain with no carbon emissions.
Regarding Claim 11, Swinger and Liu in combination teach an electric axle (see Fig. 1 of Liu) for a motor vehicle with an electric machine (1 of Liu) and the transmission device (taught in combination by Swinger and Liu) with the step-down gear unit (2 of Liu) and the differential (10 of Swinger),
wherein the transmission device (taught in combination by Swinger and Liu) is formed according to claim 10 (see Figs. 1-2 of Swinger and Fig. 1 of Liu).
Regarding Claim 12, Swinger and Liu in combination teach a motor vehicle (see Figs. 1-2 of Swinger and Fig. 1 of Liu) comprising the electric axle (see Fig. 1 of Liu) according to claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, Swinger and Liu in combination teach a motor vehicle (see Figs. 1-2 of Swinger and Fig. 1 of Liu) comprising the transmission device (taught in combination by Swinger and Liu) according to claim 10.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed June 15th, 2026 are in response to the Office Action mailed April 15th, 2026. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Response to Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 9, Applicant’s amendment addresses a minor informality indicated in the previous Office Action. As such, the claim objection is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant’s amendment is supported by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. As such, the relevant 112(a) rejection indicated in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Regarding Claims 1, 4 and 9, Applicant’s amendment has not clarified the invention for the reasons stated above.
Regarding Claim 17, Applicant’s amendment has clarified the invention. As such, the 112(b) rejection indicated in the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Applicant’s argument that “In contrast, Swinger discloses that the actuating device is arranged radially outside the outer differential housing 14 between the differential housing 14 and a spline ring 26” (p. 11) is not persuasive. It is generally unclear how the recitations of a “first radial face” and a “second radial face” differentiates from the radial faces of the outer differential carrier disclosed by Swinger. For these reasons, claims 1 and 9 stand rejected as presented above.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, Applicant’s argument that “Lee fails to disclose the discloses the actuating device is arranged facing a first radial face of the outer differential carrier and a sliding sleeve of the coupling element is arranged directly facing a second radial face of the outer differential carrier. In Lee, the differential gear set is provided in the differential casing 310 and includes first and second side gears 331 and 332 and first and second pinion gears 321 and 322. Actuating device (portions of 420, 430, 450, 400) is arranged on outside a differential casing (310) and the coupling element (420) is arranged inside of the outer differential carrier (310). Thus, like Swinger, the actuating device and a coupling element are not arranged facing opposite radial faces of an outer differential carrier but inside and outside the differential carrier” (p. 11) is persuasive. See allowable subject matter below.
In conclusion, amended claims 1 and 3-17 are rejected. See detailed and relevant rejections set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 17 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 and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Verbridge (US 2023/0008955) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" discloses a similar differential comprising a coupling device related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights