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 .
The amendment filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered. New claim 11 has been added. Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-5, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent No. CN203237061 to Wang et al. (A machine translation is enclosed with this action and referred to herein).
Regarding claim 1, the Wang patent teaches an axle for connecting two wheels of a vehicle, the axle being a driven axle comprising an axle-driven retarder 20 configured to generate a braking force by dissipating mechanical energy of the axle. See paragraphs 0010, 0012 (where the retarder is on the input shaft to the axle which means this is a driven axle), paragraph 0003 where it is stated the retarder reduces brake wear which in turn means it creates a braking force by dissipating mechanical energy of the axle. See Figs. 1-4.
Regarding claim 2, the axle comprises a differential assembly and two shafts, each shaft being connected to the differential assembly and to a wheel, the retarder being connected to the differential assembly. See paragraph 0022 and Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claim 3, the differential assembly comprise a bevel set crown wheel. See paragraph 0022 and Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claim 4, each shaft is connected to the bevel set crown wheel. See paragraph 0022 and Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claim 5, the retarder is connected to the bevel set crown wheel. See paragraph 0022 and Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claim 7 the retarder is located upstream of the axle. See paragraph 0022 and Figs. 2-4.
Regarding claim 10, the axle is used in a vehicle. See claim 1 that states it is a commercial vehicle speed reducer assembly this means that the invention is used in a vehicle
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN203237061 to Wang et al. (A machine translation is enclosed with this action and referred to herein).
Regarding claim 8, the Wang patent teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the axle comprises two retarders.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Wang patent to have two retarders, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent No. CN203237061 to Wang et al. in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0189543 to Kurosaki. (A machine translation is enclosed with this action and referred to herein).
Regarding claim 6, the Wang patent teaches all the elements of the claim except for the retarder is located downstream of the axle.
The Kurosaki publication teaches a motor 12 on one side of the axle and the retarder 36 on the other side downstream of the motor and axle. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Wang patent to have the retarder downstream of the axle as taught by the Kurosaki publication as it would have been changing the location of parts to allow for more even distribution of weight.
Regarding claim 9, the Wang patent teaches all the elements of the claim except for the axle is a front or rear axle.
The Kurosaki publication teaches the retarder can be put on the front or rear drive axle. See paragraph 0042.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Wang patent to have the retarder on the front or rear axle as taught by the Kurosaki publication as it would have been changing the location of parts to allow for more even distribution of weight.
Regarding claim 11, the Wang teaches all of the elements of the claim except for the explicit teaching the retarder is a component separate from a motor of the vehicle.
The Kurosaki publication teaches the motor 12 and the retarder 36 are separate components. See Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the subject invention to modify the Wang patent to have the retarder as a separate component than the motor as taught by the Kurosaki publication as it would have been combining known prior art elements using known method to provide the predictable result of allowing the parts to be changed out when needed without affecting the other component.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendment to the claims necessitated new grounds of rejection.
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 JUSTIN HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-3448. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at 571-270-3415. 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.
/JUSTIN HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights