DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Carmean et al., US PGPub 2021/0088122.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (R)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
612
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Carmean et al. discloses a drive axle assembly (see fig 5), comprising: a differential assembly (602) including a pinion gear (664) and a crown gear (613), the pinion gear (664) configured to drive the crown gear (613) and the crown gear (613) rotatable about a rotation axis (center of 613), and a lubricant baffle (600), wherein the lubricant baffle (600) is positioned below (see fig. 5, baffle is centered below C1) an axis of rotaton (C1) of the pinion gear (664) and faces a toothed front face (682) of the crown gear (613), and wherein the lubricant baffle (600) has, with respect to the rotation axis (as described above) of the crown gear (613), an axial dimension (thickness of baffle - A in annotated figure above), a radial dimension (R in annotated figure above) and a circumferential dimension (see fig 5), the axial dimension (as described above) of the baffle being smaller (see annotated figure above) than both the radial dimension (as described above) and the circumferential dimension (as described above), wherein the lubricant baffle (600) has a flat plate shaped (see fig 10) that has a first planar face (left side in fig 10), a second planar face (right side in fig 10), an arc-shaped inner edge (interior of 688) that extends between the first planar face (as described above) and the second planar face (as described above), and an outer edge (external surface of 688) that extend between the first planar face (as described above) and the second planar face (as described above); wherein the axial dimension (as described above) defines a thickness of the baffle (600); and wherein an entirety of the lubricant baffle (600) is positioned interior from the toothed front face (668) of the pinion gear (664) along an axis of rotation (C1) of a driven shaft (652) that is drivingly coupled to a differential gear (613).
Regarding claim 2, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the outer-edge (as described above) of the lubricant baffle (600) is arc-shaped (see fig 10a, sides of outer wall are configured as arcs) along a portion and is straightened along a length (688) that contacts a lower wall (see fig 5) of a drive axle housing (642).
Regarding claim 3, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, a radial edge (outermost edge) is positioned below (see region that projects into 628) a static lubricant level (contained within 628) in a drive axle housing (604) that encloses the lubricant baffle (600).
Regarding claim 8, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the circumferential dimension (as described above) of the lubricant baffle (600) that is measured from a first radial edge to a second radial edge (see fig 5) of the lubricant baffle (600) is less than 270 ° (see fig 5).
Regarding claim 10, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the first planar face (as described above) and the second planar face (as described above) are arranged orthogonal to a rotational axis (center of 613 shown with dot in fig 5) of the crown gear (613).
Regarding claim 11, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 10, the lubricant baffle (600) includes a cut-out (802) in the outer edge (as described above) that extends through the thickness of the lubricant baffle (600).
Regarding claim 12, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, further including a drive axle housing (604), the differential assembly (602) disposed within the drive axle housing (604).
Regarding claim 13, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 12, wherein the axial central region (as described above – see fig 9) comprises an axial center (center of 604) of the drive axle housing (604) and up 20 % of the total axial length (see fig 9) of the drive axle housing (604) in both axial directions from said axial center (as described above).
Regarding claim 14, Carmean et al. discloses a set of drive axle assemblies (see fig 1, 132 and 162), the set comprising a first drive axle (132) assembly and a second drive axle (162) assembly according to claim 1; wherein in the first set (132) the crown gear (613) is positioned on a first axial side (see fig 1) of the pinion gear (664) and in the second set (162) the crown gear (613) is positioned on a second axial side (see fig 1) of the pinion gear (664) that is opposite to the first axial side (as described above); wherein the lubricant baffle (600) is positioned identically relative to the drive axle housing (604) in both of the first and second drive axle assembly (as described above).
Regarding claim 15, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the first planar face (as described above) and the second planar face (as described above) are arranged orthogonal to the axis of rotation (C1) of a driven shaft (652).
Regarding claim 16, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 15, wherein the maximum total length of the lubricant baffle in the axial direction (as described above) spans an entirety of the lubricant baffle (600) in the axial direction (as described above).
Regarding claim 17, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, a shoulder (642) of a drive axle housing (604) contacts the lubricant baffle (600).
Regarding claim 18, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the shoulder (642) functions as an axial stop (see matching countours) during insertion of the lubricant baffle (600) into the drive axle housing (604).
Regarding claim 19, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, further comprising a drive axle housing (604) that includes a main part (616) and axial end covers (612,614) attached thereto, wherein the differential assembly (as described above) is enclosed in the main part (616).
Regarding claim 20, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, wherein the lubricant baffle (600) is positioned in an axial central region (see fig 7) of the drive axle assembly (602).
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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmean et al.
Regarding claim 4, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 3, but does not specify that circumferential dimension (as described above) of the lubricant baffle (600) that is measured from a first radial edge to a second radial edge of the lubricant baffle is less than 180°. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to reduce the circumferential dimensions of the baffle since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to reduce the circumferential dimensions of the baffle in order to reduce the drag on the differential gear and enhance efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 4, wherein the lubricant baffle (600) is fixed to the drive axle housing (as described above) at a position that is below a static lubricant level (see region extending into 628 in fig 5) in the drive axle housing (604).
Regarding claim 6, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 5, wherein the outer edge (as described above) of the lubricant baffle (600) is fixed (via 732) to the drive axle housing (604).
Regarding claim 7, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 5, where the static lubricant level (as described above) is positioned below a rotational axis (C1) of the pinion gear (664).
Regarding claim 21, Carmean et al. discloses the drive axle assembly of claim 1, but does not specify that the axial dimension of the lubricant baffle amounts to less than 2% of the radial dimension of the lubricant baffle. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to employ a baffle with the specified thickness since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a baffle with the specified thickness in order reduce weight and material costs associated with the baffle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Carmean does not disclose baffle but rather a shroud and that these are not synonymous. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both baffles and shrouds are used to direct lubrication and therefore are synonymous. Furthermore the structure and function of the system detailed in Carmean functions analogously to the disclosed system. Therefore applicants argument is not persuasive.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Carmean does not disclose an arc shaped baffle, but rather a U-shaped baffle. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The lower corners of the baffle in Carmean, as best shown in fig 10A, contains arc-shaped segments. Therefore Carmean does disclose the disputed limitation and Applicants argument is not persuasive.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Canmean does not disclose "an entirety of the lubricant baffle is positioned interior from the toothed front face of the pinion gear along an axis of rotation of a driven shaft that is drivingly coupled to a differential gear." Examiner respectfully disagrees. This feature is best shown in fig 5 where the pinion teeth 668 are positioned interior to the baffle (600). Applicants argument is therefore not persuasive.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the “obvious design choice” rejection is not valid because the claimed features perform differently than prior art. Examiner respectfully disagree. Cameron discloses the system with a very thin axial dimension relative to radial dimension. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ a baffle with the specified thickness in order reduce weight and material costs associated with the baffle. Therefore Applicants argument is not persuasive.
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 MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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.
MICHAEL A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654