DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Summary
This action is a second nonfinal because applicant persuasively argues against the rejection to previous claim 15, whose content has been amended into independent claim 11, but additional searching found an obvious combination of prior art to reject currently amended claim 11. Claims 16, 21, 25, and 28 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. Claims 11-14, 17-20, 22-24, 26-27, and 29-31 are rejected. Claim 15 is canceled.
The amendments filed on 7/22/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added. The arguments filed on 7/22/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive, persuasive but moot, and not persuasive.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 7/22/2026 have been entered, no new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed on 7/22/2026 have been fully considered and are a combination of persuasive, persuasive but moot, and not persuasive.
Regarding claim 11, applicant persuasively argues that claim 15 which has been absorbed into claim 11, was improperly rejected. Specifically, claim 15 was previously rejected based on Nakamura’s clutch teaching a positive engagement, and applicant persuasively argues that this is not true. Nakamura teaches a friction engagement clutch, which is not a positive engagement clutch, and thus does not teach all the limitations of previous claim 15, nor currently amended claim 11. This is true, but upon additional searching, a positive engagement clutch was found that could be obviously combined with Nakamura to teach all the limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected and this is a second nonfinal office action.
Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that it has been amended to overcome the previous 112 rejection, by restructuring the language into sections (a), (b), and (c) which make it clear that “(1) a first driving condition variable is recorded and stored, (2) the coupling probability value K is ascertained on the basis of that first driving condition variable, and (3) K is greater than G.” Examiner disagrees that (2), and (3) are clear based on the language of claim 12. First of all, claim 12 depends on claim 11 which says that K is determined on the bases of a driving condition variable, but now claim 12 says it is determined on the basis of a first driving condition variable being greater than G. It is not clear if these driving condition variables are the same or different variables, nor how they cooperatively determine the value of K. Second of all, the claim does not say that K is greater than G, it says that the value of K is “ascertained on the basis of the first driving condition variable being greater than the limit value G.” So claim 12 remains indefinite.
Applicant further argues that Stares cannot be combined with Nakamura to teach all the limitations of claim 12 because Stares teaches adapting connection rates based on historical connect events not to the claimed adaptive learning. In support of this, applicant cites to two sections of Stares, that applicant claim come from page 29 which the previous office action cited to teach the limitations of claim 12. Neither of the applicant’s citations actually come from page 29. Applicant cites, “the vehicle may be configured to be adaptive to a drive style of a user or to conditions of an environment in which a vehicle is deployed” which is from page 12 lines 25-26. Applicant also cites, “the connect rate [may be] responsive to a history of previous connect rates,” which is from page 12 line 15 and starts with the word “Optionally.” Notably, the word “rates” does not appear on page 29. Instead, the section cited by the examiner is concerned with a predictive evaluator which is using stored values about the driving conditions of the user to probabilistically determine if it should change the vehicle from a 2WD mode to a 4WD mode which would require the speed of the gear output element to be matched to the wheel drive shaft speed. This maps well to the definite portions of claim 12, and thus the rejection is maintained.
Finally, applicant argues that the motivation to combine is insufficient because the cited rationale “does not explain how Stares' connect rate control would lead one of ordinary skill to implement the specific variance-based comparison of driving condition variables recited in claim 12.” This argument is not persuasive because applicant is once again citing to a different section of Stares involving connect rates, instead of the section relied upon by the office action involving a predictive evaluator.
Regarding claim 16, applicant persuasively argues against the previous 103 rejection. Upon additional searching, no prior art reference was found that could teach all the limitations of claim 16 on its own or in an obvious combination, thus the claim contains allowable subject matter, as indicated in the allowable subject matter section below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 21, 25, and 28 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, this claim, applicant persuasively argued against the previous 103 rejection by pointing out that this is not a generic regenerative braking process, but instead a process that is only begun after the speed of the gear output element and wheel drive shaft are matched and the coupling process is not started. The previously cited prior art does not teach this particular process, nor does any identified prior art. Thus, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However, Nakamura does not teach that after the coupling process is started, the electric traction machine is changed over from the speed control mode to a torque control mode. Upon additional searching, many references were found that teach torque control modes, but none were found that teach changing from a speed control mode to a torque control mode after a coupling process is started (see for example Shinohara US 10442282 B2, Ienaga US 10618508 B2, and Clarke US 10406916 B2). Thus, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 25, this claim appropriately depends upon claim 16 and thus inherits its allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 28, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection below.
However Nakamura does not teach wherein a decoupling process is performed in which the electric traction machine is switched from a torque control mode to a speed control mode before the coupling device is moved into a decoupling position.
Upon additional searching, many references were found that teach torque control modes, but none were found that teach changing from a torque control mode to a speed control mode after a decoupling process is started (see for example Shinohara US 10442282 B2, Ienaga US 10618508 B2, and Clarke US 10406916 B2). Thus, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 26-27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 12, the claims includes the limitations:
(a) a first driving condition variable is recorded and stored, the coupling probability value K ascertained on the basis of the first driving condition variable being greater than the limit value G.
It is not clear how K is a “coupling probability value” if it is merely ascertained based on whether the first driving condition variable is greater than the limit value G. If K is only based on a yes or no condition, then it seem like K would be a yes or no value, not a probability value. Furthermore, this section of claim 12 seems to conflict with claim 11 on which claim 12 depends because claim 11 says that K is ascertained on the basis of a driving condition variable while this claim says K is ascertained on the basis of a first driving condition variable. This is indefinite because it is not clear if a driving condition variable and a first driving condition variable are the same or different variables, especially because each is claimed to be the basis on which K is determined.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, these claims depend upon claim 12 and thus inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 29, this claim includes the limitations “the coupling probability value K is ascertained on the basis of a sensor value and/or a navigation value.” This is indefinite because this claim depends upon claim 11 which says that K is ascertained on the basis of a driving condition variable. It is not clear if the driving condition variable is the sensor value and/or a navigation value or if the driving condition variable is separate from the sensor value and or a navigation value. Thus, it is not clear if K is ascertained on the basis of the sensor value and/or navigation value alone, or in combination with the driving condition variable. Thus, claim 29 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 11, 13-14, 17-20, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2010159020 A) in view of Moubarak (US 11167649 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura teaches a method for operating a drive axle for a motor vehicle, in which a rotor shaft of an electric traction machine (4 “a motor” taught by figure 1) and a gear drive element of a gear device (11 “speed reduce” taught by figure 1) are non- rotatably connected to one another, a gear output element of the gear device and a wheel drive shaft being couplable to one another and decouplable from one another via a coupling device (12 “clutch” taught by figure 1), the method comprising:
recording a driving condition variable that characterizes a current driving situation, the driving condition variable being taken as a basis for ascertaining a coupling probability value K and,
using the electric traction machine to match a speed of the gear output element to a wheel drive shaft speed, if the coupling probability value K is greater than a limit value G, independently of whether a coupling process is subsequently started in which the gear output element and the wheel drive shaft are non-rotatably coupled to one another (taught by paragraphs 53-54 “Steps S410 to S520 constitute a four-wheel drive prediction unit. Steps S530 to S760 constitute motor preliminary drive means. The four-wheel drive prediction means estimates whether or not there is a high possibility that the four-wheel drive condition is satisfied during the two-wheel drive traveling. When it is estimated that the four-wheel drive predicting means is likely to be in the four-wheel drive condition, the motor preliminary drive means determines that the number of revolutions of the clutch 12 on the motor side is equal to the number of revolutions of the clutch 12 on the driven wheel side. The motor is rotationally driven to synchronize. If it is determined that the four-wheel drive condition is satisfied, the clutch 12 is controlled to be in a connected state.”).
However, Nakamura does not teach wherein: when the coupling process is started, the wheel drive shaft and the gear output element are coupled to one another with positive engagement via the coupling device.
Moubarak teaches when the coupling process is started, the wheel drive shaft and the gear output element are coupled to one another with positive engagement via the coupling device (taught by paragraph 33 “Once dog clutch 115 is engaged, there may only be a finite amount of slip between first side 203 and second side 202. Thus, dog clutch 115 may provide a positive engagement between first side 203 and second side 202”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the clutch of Nakamura with the positive engagement clutch of Moubarak, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because positive engagement clutches are less likely to slip than friction clutches.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the method according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches the driving condition variable is recorded by recording one or more of the following driving condition subvariables:
a deflection of a pedal, a history of deflections of a pedal over time, a history of instances of a limit position of a pedal being exceeded over time, a coefficient of friction of a road surface, a gradient of a road, a route planning, an operating condition of a direction of travel indicator, an operating condition of a safety system (taught by paragraph 12 “A brake stroke sensor 35 detects the stroke amount of the brake pedal 34. The brake stroke sensor 35 outputs the detected brake stroke amount to the braking controller 36 and the 4WD controller 8” and by paragraph 22 “In step S25, it is determined whether the accelerator pedal is depressed and the accelerator is off.”).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the method according to claim 13, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches the driving condition subvariable is recorded using a sensor system and/or a navigation system (taught by paragraph 12 “A brake stroke sensor 35 detects the stroke amount of the brake pedal 34. The brake stroke sensor 35 outputs the detected brake stroke amount to the braking controller 36 and the 4WD controller 8”).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the method according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches a control unit for a drive axle of a motor vehicle, the control unit being configured to carry out the method according to claim 11 to control an electric traction machine and a coupling device of the drive axle (8 “4WD controller” taught in figures 1 and 3, and paragraph 17 “As shown in FIG. 3, the 4WD controller 8 includes a generator control unit 8A, a relay control unit 8B, a motor control unit 8C, a clutch control unit 8D, a surplus torque calculation unit 8E, a target torque limiting unit 8F, and a surplus torque conversion unit 8G. And a clutch synchronization control unit 8H.”).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the method according to claim 17, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches a drive axle for a motor vehicle, said drive axle being able to be operated using the control unit according to claim 17 (taught by annotated figure 1 attached below).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 18, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches the drive axle is in the form of an auxiliary drive axle that can be used, in the intended installation position, in conjunction with a main drive axle of the motor vehicle to provide an all-wheel-drive functionality (taught by annotated figure 1 attached above).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 18, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches a motor vehicle having a drive axle according to claim 18 (taught by figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura in view of Moubarak also teaches wherein: the coupling device is free of a friction coupling unit (taught by Moubarak paragraph 33 “Once dog clutch 115 is engaged, there may only be a finite amount of slip between first side 203 and second side 202. Thus, dog clutch 115 may provide a positive engagement between first side 203 and second side 202”).
Regarding claim 23, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches wherein: the speed of the gear output element is matched to the wheel drive shaft speed before a control signal for starting the coupling process is delivered to the coupling device (taught by the specification “A motor rotation speed sensor 26 for detecting the rotation speed Nm of the drive shaft of the motor 4 is provided. The motor rotation speed sensor 26 outputs the detected rotation speed signal of the motor 4 to the 4WD controller 8. The clutch 12 is a hydraulic clutch or an electromagnetic clutch, and is connected or released according to a clutch control command from the 4WD controller 8.”).
Regarding claim 24, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches wherein: the gear device comprises a transmission mechanism (11 “speed reducer” taught by figure 1) and a differential (3 “rear differential” taught by figure 1), and the speed of the gear output element is matched to the wheel drive shaft speed by actuating the electric traction machine such that the rotor shaft rotates at a synchronization speed, the synchronization speed being transmitted via the transmission mechanism such that the gear output element rotates at the same speed and in the same direction of rotation as the wheel drive shaft (taught by figure 1 and the specification “Here, the input / output rotational speed difference ΔVc is obtained by multiplying the detection value of the motor rotational speed detection sensor of the motor 4 on the input side by the reduction ratio of the speed reducer 11 and the rear wheels 3L and 3R on the output side. It can be calculated from the difference between the left and right average wheel rotational speed and the gear ratio of the rear differential 3”).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2010159020 A) in view of Moubarak (US 11167649 B2) and in further view of Stares (GB 2488241 A).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura teaches the method according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura does not teach:
(a) a first driving condition variable is recorded and stored, the coupling probability value K ascertained on the basis of the first driving condition variable being greater than the limit value G,
(b) a variance value A is ascertained between the stored first driving condition variable and a second driving condition variable, the second driving condition variable being recorded in up-to-date fashion after the first driving condition variable, and
(c) if the variance value A is less than a variance limit value AG, the speed of the gear output element is matched to the wheel drive shaft speed.
Stares teaches:
(a) a first driving condition variable is recorded and stored, the coupling probability value K ascertained on the basis of the first driving condition variable being greater than the limit value G,
(b) a variance value A is ascertained between the stored first driving condition variable and a second driving condition variable, the second driving condition variable being recorded in up-to-date fashion after the first driving condition variable, and
(c) if the variance value A is less than a variance limit value AG, the speed of the gear output element is matched to the wheel drive shaft speed (page 29 line 16 to page 30 line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Nakamura with the method of Stares, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the method of Stares would help check the likelihood of coupling.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2010159020 A) in view of Moubarak (US 11167649 B2) and in further view of Shinohara (US 10442282 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura teaches the method according to claim 11, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura does not teach that if the speed of the gear output element has been matched to the wheel drive shaft speed and the coupling process is not subsequently started, the gear output element is slowed in a regenerative mode of the electric traction machine, wherein an electrical energy store is provided with electrical energy via the electric traction machine.
Shinohara teaches that if the speed of the gear output element has been matched to the wheel drive shaft speed and the coupling process is not subsequently started, the gear output element is slowed in a regenerative mode of the electric traction machine, wherein an electrical energy store is provided with electrical energy via the electric traction machine (taught by paragraph 46 “When the first and second motors 2A, 2B are attempted to be driven for regeneration from the state depicted in FIG. 6 or 7, as shown in FIG. 8, the forward torque attempting to keep the vehicle traveling forwards is applied to the planetary carriers 23A, 23B from the axles 10A, 10B. Therefore, as described above, the one-way clutch 50 is put in the disengaged state. As this occurs, the hydraulic brakes 60A, 60B are controlled to be put in the applied state (ON). Consequently, the ring gears 24A, 24B are fixed, and backward regenerative braking torque is applied to the first and second motors 2A, 2B, whereby a regenerative deceleration is executed by the first and second motors 2A, 2B. In this way, when the forward torque at the rear wheels Wr is inputted into the first and second motors 2A, 2B, the one-way clutch 50 is put in the disengage state, and it is not possible to transmit the power only by the one-way clutch 50”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electric traction machine of Nakamura with the regenerative mode of Shinohara, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it would allow the energy of the gear output element to be used to charge the battery, when that energy would otherwise be wasted.
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2010159020 A) in view of Moubarak (US 11167649 B2) and in further view of Mitsuyasu (US 9656655 B2).
Regarding claim 30, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 18, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches further comprising: a sensor system connected to the control unit (21 “engine speed detection sensor” taught by figure 1 and the specification “The engine speed detection sensor 21 outputs the detected signal to the engine controller 18 and the 4WD controller 8”).
However, Nakamura does not teach a navigation system connected to the control unit.
Mitsuyasu teaches a navigation system connected to the control unit (taught by paragraph 20 “For this purpose, the distance to the forerunning vehicle may be detected by a navigation system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control unit of Nakamura to include a navigation system as taught by Mitsuyasu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a navigation system like that of Mitsuyasu can help prevent crashes with other vehicles (taught by Mitsuyasu paragraph 29 “Specifically, an engine speed will be raised abruptly by bringing the clutch 10 into engagement and consequently the vehicle is subjected to an engine braking force. In order to mitigate such engagement shocks, when the vehicle comes closer to the forerunning vehicle than the predetermined distance L1, the correction coefficient cc is increased to raise the engine speed in advance with a decrement of the distance to the forerunning vehicle. For this purpose, the distance to the forerunning vehicle may be detected by a navigation system or a RADAR”).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (JP 2010159020 A) in view of Moubarak (US 11167649 B2) and in further view of Kusabe (US 12024023 B2).
Regarding claim 31, Nakamura in view of Moubarak teaches the drive axle according to claim 18, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above.
Nakamura also teaches wherein: the gear device comprises a transmission mechanism (11 “speed reducer” taught by figure 1) and a differential (3 “rear differential” taught by figure 1).
However, Nakamura does not teach that the differential is in the form of a bevel gear differential.
Kusabe teaches a differential in the form of a bevel gear differential. (DF1 “first output differential gear mechanism” taught by figure 1 and paragraph 49 “In the present embodiment, the first output differential gear mechanism DF1 is a bevel-gear-type differential gear mechanism”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the differential of Nakamura to be a bevel gear differential as taught by Mitsuyasu, with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because bevel gears can handle higher levels of torque than other types of gears.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KANDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5628. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, James A Shriver can be reached at (303)297-4337. 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.
/NICHOLAS R. KANDAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
/JAMES A SHRIVER II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights