DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s Reply filed on October 23, 2025. Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 18 are pending and addressed below.
Response to Amendment
In response to the applicant’s amendment to claim 18 which corrects a minor typographical issue, the objection to claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been amended. Claims 5-9 and 14-15 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Applicants have argued that the Pierce et al., US 10,682,884 (hereinafter Pierce) and El Metennani et al., US 2021/0180750 (hereinafter Metennani) fail to disclose “the skid shield is connected to the mounting flange of the differential cover by being integrally formed as one piece with the differential cover from sheet steel” and this differs from the skid shield being separately assembled to the differential as disclosed by both Pierce and Metennani. Applicant’s argue that the differential covers of both Pierce and Metennani each have an input shaft rotatably supported by the differential cover and because of forces experienced by the differential cover, one of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify the cover to be made of sheet steel as claimed. However, the applicant has not provided a reason as to why sheet steel would not be adequate for the forces experienced by the differential cover. As such this argument has not been found persuasive. Further, the current rejection as indicated below includes a differential cover formed from sheet steel as disclosed by Dick, Jr, et al., US 6,796,404 (hereinafter Dick). For these reasons it is the Examiner’s position that the cited references and indicated below clearly meet the limitations of claims 1 and 10.
Claims 2-4, 12-13, and 16, the applicant’s arguments as presented above are equally applicable to claims 2-4, 12-13, and 16.
Regarding 18, that Applicant has not presented any specific arguments with respect to claim 18. Claim 18 differs from claims 1 and 10 as it recites that the differential cover as skid shield are integrally form from “sheet metal” and not sheet steel. If the same argument presented for claims 1 and 10 with respect to “sheet steel” were presented for claim 18 with respect to “sheet metal”, the Examiner’s response would be the same as for claim 1 and 10. Specifically, that the applicant has not provided a reason as to why sheet metal would not be adequate for the forces experienced by the differential cover.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation of “for a single sheet” in line should likely be –from a single sheet--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-3, 10, 11, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce et al., US 10,682,884 (hereinafter Pierce) in view of Dick, Jr, et al., US 6,796,404 (hereinafter Dick).
Claim 1: Pierce discloses a skid shield cover (guard 102) for a differential housing (housing 108) (as shown in Fig 2) comprising:
a differential cover (108) having a bowl shaped body (Fig 3) having a mounting flange extending around a perimeter of the bowl shaped body (108) (see Fig 3), the mounting flange including a plurality of mounting holes spaced around the mounting flange (first portion of 124 of skid shield 102 is mounted to housing 108 by first fasteners 126, fasteners occupy a plurality of mounting holes in the mounting flange as shown in Fig 3, 5, col 5, ln 5-18); and
a skid shield (102) fixedly connected directly to the mounting flange of the differential cover (108) (see Fig 2-4), wherein the skid shield (102) is configured to extend adjacent to a bottom (ground facing surface 122) of the differential housing (108) (as shown in Fig 2-4, col 4, ln 23-29, 41-59), the skid shield including a bottom panel (base 138) configured to extend from the differential cover to an input shaft flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126), and configured to extend from a first axle flange to a second axle flange (flanges 140 shown perpendicular to flange 140 with fasteners 126, see Fig 5-6);
a first sidewall panel (flange 140 extends from base 138 towards housing 108 and can terminate at a distal end portion 144 thereby creating a sidewall panel, see Fig 5-6) extending from the bottom panel (138) and configured to extend from the input shaft flange (140 with fasteners 128) to the first axle flange (see Fig 5-6); and
a second sidewall panel (flange 140 extends from base 138 towards housing 108 and can terminate at a distal end portion 144 thereby creating a sidewall panel, see Fig 5-6) extending from the bottom panel (138) and configured to extend from the input shaft flange (140 with fasteners 128) to the second axle flange (see Fig 5-6).
Pierce fails to disclose the skid shield being integrally formed as one piece with the differential cover from sheet steel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the skid shield of Pierce to be formed integral with the differential cover, since it has been held that forming in one piece a structure which has formerly been formed in two, or more pieces, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Pierce fails to disclose the integrally formed skid shield and differential are formed from sheet steel.
Dick discloses a differential cover pan (10) that is preferably formed from a steel sheet (Fig 1, col 3, ln 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the integrally formed skid shield and differential of Pierce with the sheet steel as disclosed by Dick, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 2: Pierce discloses a mounting boss (removable second portion 128) extending from the skid shield (as shown in Fig 3).
Claim 3: Pierce discloses wherein the skid shield (102) includes a debris exit hole (opening 150) (opening 150 allows oil to drain when servicing the oil in the housing 108, col 5, ln 58-col 6, ln 2).
Claim 10: Pierce discloses a differential assembly comprising:
a differential housing (housing 108) having an input shaft flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126), a first axle flange and a second axle flange (flanges 140 shown perpendicular to flange 140 with fasteners 126, see Fig 5-6), and an open end with a first mounting flange having a plurality of attachment holes (at bolts as shown in lower portion of Fig 3);
a first axle (axle 104 on left) extends through the first axle flange (as shown in Fig 2, col 4, ln 30-35);
a second axle (axle 104 on right) extends through the second axle flange (as shown in Fig 2, col 4, ln 30-35);
a differential cover includes a bowl shaped body (see Fig 3) a second mounting flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126) extending around a perimeter of the bowl shaped body (108) (see Fig 3) and including a plurality of mounting holes spaced around the mounting flange (first portion of 124 of skid shield 102 is mounted to housing 108 by first fasteners 126, fasteners occupy a plurality of mounting holes in the mounting flange as shown in Fig 3, 5, col 5, ln 5-18) and aligned with the plurality of attachment holes (at bolts as shown in lower portion of Fig 3), wherein the second mounting flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126) is connected to the first mounting flange of the differential housing (at bolts as shown in lower portion of Fig 3, 5, col 5, ln 5-18);
a skid shield (102) is connected to second mounting flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126) of the differential cover (108) (see Fig 2-4) and extends adjacent to a bottom surface (ground facing surface 122) of the differential housing (108) (as shown in Fig 2-4, col 4, ln 23-29, 41-59); and
the skid shield including a bottom panel (base 138) extending from the differential cover to an input shaft flange (flange 140 with fasteners 126), and extending from a first axle flange to a second axle flange (flanges 140 shown perpendicular to flange 140 with fasteners 126, see Fig 5-6), a first sidewall panel (flange 140 extends from base 138 towards housing 108 and can terminate at a distal end portion 144 thereby creating a sidewall panel, see Fig 5-6) extending from the bottom panel (138) and extending from the input shaft flange (140 with fasteners 128) to the first axle flange (see Fig 5-6), and a second sidewall panel (flange 140 extends from base 138 towards housing 108 and can terminate at a distal end portion 144 thereby creating a sidewall panel, see Fig 5-6) extending from the bottom panel (138) and extending from the input shaft flange (140 with fasteners 128) to the second axle flange (see Fig 5-6); and
a plurality of bolts (fasteners 126) inserted into corresponding attachment holes in the first mounting flange and the second mounting flange (as shown at bolts as shown in lower portion of Fig 3, see Fig 5-6).
Pierce fails to disclose the skid shield being integrally formed as one piece with the differential cover.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the skid shield of Pierce to be formed integral with the differential cover, since it has been held that forming in one piece a structure which has formerly been formed in two, or more pieces, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Pierce fails to disclose the integrally formed skid shield and differential are formed from sheet steel.
Dick discloses a differential cover pan (10) that is preferably formed from a steel sheet (Fig 1, col 3, ln 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the integrally formed skid shield and differential of Pierce with the sheet steel as disclosed by Dick, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 11: Pierce discloses the skid shield (102) includes a mounting boss (removable second portion 128) having at least one attachment hole (attachment features 166) for attachment to the differential housing (removable second portion 128 is attached to 102 which is further attached to housing 108, see Fig 2-4, col 6, ln 33-41).
Claim 13: Pierce disclose the skid shield (102) includes a drain hole (opening 150) (opening 150 allows oil to drain when servicing the oil in the housing 108, col 5, ln 58-col 6, ln 2).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce in view of Dick as applied to claims 1 and 10, and further view of Murphy et al., US 2021/0323364 (hereinafter Murphy).
Claim 4: Pierce fails to disclose the skid shield is configured to define a plurality of air inlets between the skid shield and the differential and the skid shield includes a plurality of air outlets.
Murphy discloses a skid plate (120) configured to define a plurality of air inlets (vent openings 325) between the skid shield and the differential and the skid shield includes a plurality of air outlets (airflow region 510) (skid plate 120 includes air flow vents which allow air to pass through the skid plate, par [0022], which necessarily requires air inlets and outlets between the skid plate and under carriage components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skid plate of Pierce to further include air inlets and air outlets as disclosed by Murphy as this modification would have allowed air flow between the skid shield and the differential thereby yielding the predictable results of cooling between the skid shield and the differential (Murphy, par [0022]).
Claim 12: Pierce fails to discloses an air inlet defined between the skid shield and the differential housing; and a plurality of air outlets defined by the skid shield.
Murphy discloses a skid plate (120) configured to define a plurality of air inlets (vent openings 325) between the skid shield and the differential and the skid shield includes a plurality of air outlets (airflow region 510) (skid plate 120 includes air flow vents which allow air to pass through the skid plate, par [0022], which necessarily requires air inlets and outlets between the skid plate and under carriage components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skid plate of Pierce to further include air inlets and air outlets as disclosed by Murphy as this modification would have allowed air flow between the skid shield and the differential thereby yielding the predictable results of cooling between the skid shield and the differential (Murphy, par [0022]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce in view of Dick as applied to claim 10, and further in view of El Metennani et al., US 2021/0180750 (hereinafter Metennani).
Claim 16: Pierce fails to disclose the skid shield is made from sheet metal that is configured to crush or flex in response to an impact in order to prevent slip of the differential cover relative to the differential housing.
El Metennani discloses a skid shield (guard 300) made from sheet metal (par [0021]) that is configured to crush or flex in response to an impact (sheet metal of guard 300 is capable of crush or flex in response to an impact) in order to protect the axle housing (225) (Fig 2, par [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the skid shield of Pierce to be made of sheet metal configured to crush or flex in response to impact as disclosed by El Metannani as this modification would have protected the differential cover and differential housing which would necessarily prevent slip of the differential cover relative to the differential housing (El Metennani, Fig 2, par [0021]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce.
Claim 18: Pierce discloses a method of attaching a skid shield (guard 102) to a differential housing (axle housing 108) comprising:
a differential cover (108, Fig 3) and a skid shield (guard 102);
wherein the differential cover (108) includes a bowl shaped body with a mounting flange (at bolts in lower portion of Fig 3) extending from the bowl shaped body (as shown in Fig 2-3) and the skid shield (102) extends from the mounting flange (secured with fasteners 126 as shown in Fig 3);
mounting the differential cover to an open end of a differential housing (108) (as shown at bolts in the lower portion of Fig 3) with the skid shield (102) extending along a bottom surface (ground facing surface 122) of the differential housing (108) (see Fig 2-3, col 4, ln 23-40).
Pierce is silent as to integrally forming the differential cover and the skid shield from a single sheet of metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the skid shield of Pierce to be formed integrally with the differential cover from a single sheet of metal, since it has been held that forming in one piece a structure which has formerly been formed in two, or more pieces, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Conclusion
Claims 1-4, 10-13, 16, and 18 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
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 CAROLINE N BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-1623. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10-6 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, Tara E Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/CAROLINE N BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights