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 .
Election/Restrictions
The examiner acknowledges receipt of the response to election of species filed on May 11, 2026 with traverse. Regarding the arguments on pages 6 and 7, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments and the requirement for election of species as set forth in the March 11, 2026 office action is hereby withdrawn.
Claims 28-43 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 27, 2026 and December 1, 2025 and June 26, 2024 have been considered by the examiner.
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 28-32, 34, 35 and 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,045,141 to Dehren et al. in view of U.S. Publication No. 2016/0318509 to Rycroft.
Regarding claims 28 and 34, the Dehren patent teaches a utility vehicle, comprising: a plurality of ground engaging members including a pair of front ground engaging members 16, 17 and a pair of rear ground engaging members 7, 8 ;a prime mover operably coupled to a first number of ground engaging members of the plurality of ground engaging members; a braking assembly operably coupled to at least one ground engaging member of the plurality of ground engaging members (see column 4, lines 64 and 65); a first torque altering unit 18 operably coupled between the pair of front ground engaging members; a second torque altering unit 19 positioned intermediate the prime mover and the first torque altering unit; a third torque altering unit 4 coupled between the pair of rear ground engaging members; and a control system operably coupled to each of the first torque altering unit, the second torque altering unit, and the third torque altering unit, the control system operable to control, by the second torque altering unit, distribution of torque between a first ground engaging member of the pair of front ground engaging members and a second ground engaging member of the pair of rear ground engaging members. This is interpreted as the torque vectoring system 14, see column 5, lines 34-64.
The Dehren patent lacks a specific teaching of a prime mover.
The Rycroft publication teaches a vehicle with an engine 121, a transmission 124 and a power take off unit 131p. 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 Dehren patent to have the engine and transmission as taught by the Rycroft as this would be combining know prior art elements using known methods to provide the predictable result of having an engine in a vehicle and an engine and transmission is a known way of providing power to the wheels of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 29, the control system is operable to control, by the second torque altering unit in combination with braking of the at least one ground engaging member, distribution of torque between a first ground engaging member of the pair of front ground engaging members and a second ground engaging member of the pair of rear ground engaging members. See column 5, lines 65-67 and column 6, lines 1-29.
Regarding claims 30 and 35, a first prop shaft (see Fig. 3 the shaft between 19 and 18) coupled between the second torque altering unit and the first torque altering unit.
Regarding claim 31, the pair of front ground engaging members includes a first ground engaging member and a second ground engaging member and the pair of rear ground engaging members includes a third ground engaging member and a fourth ground engaging member, wherein the control system is operable to control the distribution of torque to each of the first ground-engaging member, second ground-engaging member and third ground-engaging member based upon wheel speed data. See claim 18 of Dehren.
Regarding claims 32 and 39, a transmission 124 operably coupled to the prime mover, and the second torque altering unit is integrated with the transmission. See Fig. 1 of Rycroft.
Regarding claim 40, at least one of the first differential and second differential is a torque altering unit. See Fig. 3 of Dehren.
Regarding claim 41, a sensor operable to measure an acceleration (see paragraph 0095 of Rycroft), the control system operable to adjust the torque altering unit in response to the acceleration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 28-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6, 7 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,981,873 to Stock et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the claims have a front, rear and center differential for altering torque to two axles with wheels, a braking system and a controller for controlling the axles and the differentials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0100933 to Ehrlich et al. teaches an electric powertrain.
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