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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to page 6 of the remarks on the rejections of claims 16-20, the Applicant argues that Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Keane et al (US Patent US 10036467 B2) does not teach a plurality of lubricant galleries designed to distribute lubricant through the drive axle assembly. Para [0042] of Kwasniewski teaches that the lubricant galleries (100 on left and right side of Fig 3) are designed to distribute lubricant from the galleries to the sump portion (60). Para [0026]) of Kwasniewski then teaches that the lubricant is distributed from the sump portion to other portions of the drive axle assembly as the lubricant is splashed. The Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, filed July 22, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Kwasniewski 2 (BR Patent Publication BR 102012033398 A2).
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 9-11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Kwasniewski 2 (BR Patent Publication BR 102012033398 A2).
With regards to Claim 9: Kwasniewski et al teaches a drive axle assembly, comprising: a case differential comprising a plurality of fins (seen on 82 and 86 in Figs 3 and 7) along a central portion (50) of a drive axle (24); an arm portion (52) extending from the central portion, the arm portion comprising a lubricant partition (26) arranged between a top wall and a bottom wall of the arm portion and connecting side walls of the arm portion (seen in Fig 3), the lubricant partition being angled toward the central portion (seen in Fig 3) and away from wheel ends arranged at opposite extreme ends of the drive axle to return lubricant toward the central portion (via 124).
Kwasniewski et al does not teach a plurality of seals arranged between the central portion of the drive axle and wheel ends arranged at opposite extreme ends of the drive axle.
Kwasniewski 2 teaches a drive axle assembly, comprising: a case differential comprising a central portion (30) of a drive axle (10); an arm portion (34) extending from the central portion, and a plurality of seals (106’) arranged between the central portion of the drive axle and wheel ends arranged at opposite extreme ends of the drive axle.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive axle assembly disclosed in Kwasniewski et al with the plurality of seals taught in Kwasniewski 2 with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have prevented lubricant from leaking or passing around the housing as taught by Kwasniewski 2 (page 7 para 2).
With regards to Claim 10: The combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, wherein the plurality of fins (seen on Kwasniewski 82 and 86 in Kwasniewski Figs 3 and 7) comprises angled surfaces (seen on Kwasniewski 82 and 86 in Kwasniewski Figs 3 and 7) configured to direct lubricant in a clockwise direction or a counterclockwise direction.
With regards to Claim 11: The combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, wherein the arm portion (Kwasniewski 52) of the drive axle extends from the central portion (Kwasniewski 50) to the wheel ends (at Kwasniewski 94), the arm portion sloped toward the central portion (seen in Kwasniewski Fig 3).
With regards to Claim 13: The combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, wherein the plurality of fins (seen on Kwasniewski 82 and 86 in Kwasniewski Figs 3 and 7) extends radially outward from the axle shaft side gears (seen on Kwasniewski 82 and 86 in Kwasniewski Figs 3 and 7).
With regards to Claim 15: The combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, wherein seals of the plurality of seals (Kwasniewski-2 106) are arranged at the wheel ends (via Kwasniewski-2 Fig 5).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Kwasniewski 2 (BR Patent Publication BR 102012033398 A2) and in further view of Sadahiro (US Patent Publication US 20200025284 A1).
With regards to Claim 12: The combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski-2 et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, but does not teach the plurality of fins (seen on Kwasniewski 82 and 86 in Kwasniewski Figs 3 and 7) comprises a plurality of first fins and a plurality of second fins different than the plurality of first fins.
Sadahiro teaches a differential assembly with a differential side gear (34) comprising a plurality of first fins (38k and 38w) and a plurality of second fins (38m) different than the plurality of first fins (seen in Fig 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive axle assembly taught in the combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al with the plurality of first fins and the plurality of second fins different than the plurality of first fins taught in Sadahiro with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the lubricant to move through the drive axle assembly in the desired directions.
Claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Kwasniewski 2 (BR Patent Publication BR 102012033398 A2) and in further view of Keane et al (US Patent US 10036467 B2).
With regards to Claim 14: Kwasniewski et al teaches the drive axle assembly of claim 9, further comprising lubricant galleries (Kwasniewski 100) extending from a differential cap half (Kwasniewski 42) and a differential ring gear (Kwasniewski 82).
Kwasniewski et al teaches that bearings may be operatively connected to the drive pinion (para [0025]) but does not teach a differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing.
Keane et al teaches a drive axle assembly comprising a differential ring gear (92) and a differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing (96 seen in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive axle assembly taught in the combination of Kwasniewski and Kwasniewski 2 et al with the differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing taught in Keane et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the differential to move at the speeds desired for the preferred operation.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Keane et al (US Patent US 10036467 B2).
With regards to Claim 16: Kwasniewski et al teaches a system, comprising: a drive axle assembly comprising an axle (254) extending between wheel ends (at 94 in Fig 1); and a differential cap (42) centrally arranged between the wheel ends, wherein a plurality of lubricant galleries (100 on left and right side of Fig 3) extend from a differential cap half and a differential ring gear (82), wherein the plurality of lubricant galleries are configured to transfer lubricant splashed (by directing lubricant to the sump portion and then distributing throughout the drive axle assembly via para [0042] para [0026]).
Kwasniewski et al teaches that bearings may be operatively connected to the drive pinion (para [0025]) but does not teach a differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing.
Keane et al teaches a drive axle assembly comprising a differential ring gear (92) and a differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing (96 seen in Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive axle assembly disclosed in Kwasniewski et al with the differential head bearing and a differential tail bearing taught in Keane et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed the differential to move at the speeds desired for the preferred operation.
With regards to Claim 18: The combination of Kwasniewski and Keane et al teaches the system of claim 16, wherein a plurality of seals (Kwasniewski 26) is arranged between the differential cap (42) and the wheel ends (at Kwasniewski 94).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwasniewski et al (US Patent Application US 20180045298 A1) in view of Keane et al (US Patent US 10036467 B2) and in further view of Feng et al (CN Patent CN 116292839 A).
With regards to Claim 20: The combination of Kwasniewski and Keane et al teaches the system of claim 16, but does not teach a plurality of core holes arranged in the axles plugged with a plurality of core plugs.
Feng teaches a drive axle assembly comprising a core hole (at 100 in Fig 4) arranged in the axles (at 1) plugged with a core plug (100).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive axle assembly taught in the combination of Kwasniewski and Keane et al with the core hole and core plug taught in Feng et al with a reasonable expectation of success because it would have allowed fluid maintenance of the drive axle assembly without dismantling all the components of the assembly.
The combination of Kwasniewski, Keane and Feng et al does not teach a plurality of core holes arranged in the axles plugged with a plurality of core plugs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of core holes arranged in the axles plugged with a plurality of core plugs because it would allow for faster maintenance or replacement of the fluid without completely dismantling the components. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The prior art of record neither shows nor teaches a drive axle as claimed in Claim 1 comprising, in combination with the recited limitations:
With regards to Claim 1: A drive axle, comprising: a central portion comprising a differential assembly, the differential assembly comprising axle shaft side gears with a plurality of fins in contact with lubricant of an axle housing, the plurality of fins comprising a plurality of first fins having convex walls and a plurality of second fins having concave walls, the plurality of fins configured to circulate the lubricant toward a differential carrier, and an arm portion comprising axle shafts, the arm portion comprising an inner inclined surface to guide oil toward the central portion and a plurality of holes distributed axially.
It would not lead to compact prosecution to make a combination of the prior art without impermissible hindsight or destroying the primary reference.
Claims 17 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 Matthew J Ganci whose telephone number is (571)272-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571) 270-5985. 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.
/MATTHEW JOSEPH GANCI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3614
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
