DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits of Application No. 18/898,223 filed on 09/26/2024. Claims 1-21 are pending.
Examiner Note
Examiner would welcome an interview to clarify any of the various objections/rejections seen below in order to expediate prosecution of the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “532b” has been used to designate both a second portion (as shown in fig. 3) and part of a first section 32a (as shown in figs 5-6). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second portions of a disconnect arrayment in claims 1 and 16; an outer housing in which a shaft carrying multiple trunnions in claim 9; and an annular member attached to a rotatable housing in which a shaft carrying a plurality of trunnions is received in claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 and 17-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested to change the preamble of claims 2-15 “A continuous velocity joint assembly” to “ the continuous velocity joint assembly” and the preamble of claims 17-21 “A disconnect arrangement” to “ the disconnect arrangement”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the disconnect assembly” should change to disconnect arrangement. Claim 13 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 recites a disconnect arrangement.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the lead screw” in line 2 should read a lead screw. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 and claim 19 does not recite any lead screw.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite the limitation “a first and a second portion of a disconnect arrangement" in lines 5 (for claim 1) and 3 (for claim 16). It is not clear whether disconnect arrangement has first and second sections or the CVJ housing has a first and second portions. The specification and drawing for example fig. 8 and para 42, discloses the CVJ 612 housing has a first portion 632a in which the tripod is received. A second portion 632b is configured to rotate with or rotate independently of portion 632a depending on whether CVJ 612 is in a connected or disconnected state. Clarification is required. For the examination purpose, first and second portions of the CVJ housing have been considered.
Claims 2-15 and 17-21 are rejected as they depend on claims 1 and 16, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 15, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martus et al. (US 20100084210 A1)(hereinafter “Martus”).
Regarding claim 1, Martus discloses a continuous velocity joint assembly (e.g. 80, figs. 1 and 3, paras 19-26) comprising:
a rotatable input (e.g. 78, fig. 3, para 23) and a rotatable output;
a continuous velocity mechanism (e.g. 80, fig. 1) that allows transfer of power between the input and the output while allowing angular variation;
a disconnect arrangement (44, dog clutch 66 etc., fig. 3, para 20) having first (70) and second (68) portions capable of relative rotation with respect to one another in a disconnected state and incapable of relative rotation with respect to one another in a connected state; and
an electromechanical actuator (52, fig. 3, para 19) causing the disconnect arrangement to shift between the disconnected state and the connected state, whereby the power is transferred between the input and the output in the connected state and power is not transferred between the input and the output in the disconnected state.
Regarding claim 15, Martus discloses the continuously velocity joint assembly as set forth in claim 1, further comprising a state-maintaining mechanism (e.g. a compression spring, not shown, but disclosed in para 22) operative to maintain the disconnect arrangement in at least one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost.
Regarding claim 16, Martus discloses a disconnect arrangement (e.g. 44, 66 etc. figs. 1 and 3, paras 19-26) for use with a continuous velocity joint (80, fig. 1) , the arrangement comprising:
first (70, fig. 3, para 20) and second (68, fig. 3, para 20) portions capable of relative rotation with respect to one another in a disconnected state and incapable of relative rotation with respect to one another in a connected state;
the first portion (70) configured to be secured to an outer housing (48, fig. 3, para 16) of the continuous velocity joint (80); (see para 24 “The CV joint housing and second portion 70 of the dog clutch 66 may, for example, be a one-piece and/or monolithic structure.”)
the second portion (68) configured to be connected to a source of rotational power; (see para 21” In accordance with a second embodiment of the invention, the position of the first portion 68 of the dog clutch 66 may be configured to depend on whether the coil 64 of the electromagnetic ball ramp actuator is energized and/or deenergized, thereby allowing and/or preventing movement of the balls 60. Movement of balls 60 may then activate and/or move the first portion 68 of the dog clutch 66.”) and
an actuator (52, fig. 3, para 19) causing the disconnect assembly to shift between the disconnected state and the connected state, whereby power is transferred between the second portion 68 and the first portion 70 in the connected state and power is not transferred between the second portion and the first portion in the disconnected state.
Regarding claim 17, Martus discloses a disconnect arrangement as set forth in claim 16, wherein the first portion 70 is configured to be secured to a flange of the outer housing 48 of the continuous velocity joint 80. (see fig. 3)
Regarding claim 19, Martus discloses a disconnect arrangement as set forth in claim 16, further comprising a state-maintaining mechanism (e.g. a compression spring, not shown, but disclosed in para 22) operative to maintain the disconnect arrangement in at least one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martus et al. (US 20100084210 A1) in view of SHIBATA et al. (US 20190309804 A1) (hereinafter “SHIBATA”). (Please note the motivational statement of claim 2 can be applied the other claims wherein the teaching of Shibata is adopted)
Regarding claim 2, Martus discloses all the elements of a continuous velocity joint assembly as set forth in claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises a screw-type actuator.
SHIBATA teaches a similar kind disconnect device (e.g. 54, figs. 1-2) wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises a screw-type actuator (82, fig. 2, para 47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus by substituting the electromagnetic actuator with an electromechanical actuator as taught by SHIBATA in order to improve the engagement of the actuating element so that it is possible to suitably reduce a time required to release an engagement of an input side engagement member and an output side engagement member, namely, a time required to release a coupled state in which the input side engagement member and the output side engagement member engage with each other. (see para 2 of SHIBATA)
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have a screw-type actuator.
Regarding claim 3, Martus / SHIBATA discloses a continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 2, SHIBATA further discloses wherein the screw-type actuator (82) comprises a lead screw actuator having a lead screw (88, fig. 2 of SHIBATA) rotatably driven by an electric motor (80). (see para 48 of SHIBATA)
Regarding claim 4, Martus / SHIBATA discloses a continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 2, SHIBATA further discloses a state-maintaining mechanism (e.g. coil spring 108, fig. 2 of SHIBATA) operative to maintain the disconnect arrangement in at least one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost. (see para 51 of SHIBATA)
Claims 5-8 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martus et al. (US 20100084210 A1) in view of SHIBATA et al. (US 20190309804 A1) and further in view of Beishline et al. (US 20040140630 A1)(hereinafter “Beishline”).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Martus / SHIBATA discloses all the elements of the invention according to claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the state-maintaining mechanism comprises a torsion spring operative to rotate the lead screw via energy stored in the torsion spring to move the disconnect arrangement to a selected one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost and wherein the torsion spring comprises a clock spring.
Beishline teaches an electromechanical actuation system (700, fig. 7, paras 41-42) wherein a state-maintaining mechanism comprises a torsion spring (710, para 42) operative to rotate the motor 702 via energy stored in the torsion spring 710 to move the actuator plunger 704 to a fist position or a second position and wherein the torsion spring (710) comprises a clock spring. (see para 43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus / SHIBATA by substituting the coil spring with a torsional or clock spring as taught by Beishline in order to reduce the overall package size and drives the actuator at a point in the system that maximizes mechanical advantage, thereby improving reliability. (see para 42 of Beishline)
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have a clock spring.
Regarding claim 7, Martus / SHIBATA/ Beishline discloses a continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 5, Beishline further discloses wherein the state-maintaining mechanism is configured to provide a selectable preload to the torsion spring. (Please note: The clock spring 710 of Beishline is preloaded as per para 43)
Regarding claim 8, Martus / SHIBATA/ Beishline discloses a continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 5, SHIBATA further discloses comprising a detent arrangement (e.g. 98a, 98b, para 51) to maintain the disconnect arrangement in another one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Martus discloses all the elements of the disconnect arrangement as set forth in claim 19, but fails to wherein the state-maintaining mechanism comprises a torsion spring operative to rotate the lead screw via energy stored in the torsion spring to move the disconnect arrangement to a selected one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost and wherein the torsion spring comprises a clock spring.
SHIBATA teaches a similar kind of disconnect device (e.g. 54, figs. 1-2) wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises a lead screw-type actuator (82, fig. 2, para 47) having a lead screw (88, fig. 2 of SHIBATA) rotatably driven by an electric motor (80). (see para 48 of SHIBATA) and the state-maintaining mechanism (e.g. coil spring 108, fig. 2 of SHIBATA) operative to maintain the disconnect arrangement in at least one of the connected state and the disconnected state if power to the actuator is lost. (see para 51 of SHIBATA)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus by substituting the electromagnetic actuator with an electromechanical actuator as taught by SHIBATA in order to improve the engagement of the actuating element so that it is possible to suitably reduce a time required to release an engagement of an input side engagement member and an output side engagement member, namely, a time required to release a coupled state in which the input side engagement member and the output side engagement member engage with each other. (see para 2 of SHIBATA)
As modified, the disconnect arrangement would have a screw-type actuator.
However, SHIBATA fails to disclose the state-maintaining mechanism comprises a torsion or clock spring.
Beishline teaches an electromechanical actuation system (700, fig. 7, paras 41-42) wherein a state-maintaining mechanism comprises a torsion spring (710, para 42) operative to rotate the motor 702 via energy stored in the torsion spring 710 to move the actuator plunger 704 to a fist position or a second position and wherein the torsion spring (710) comprises a clock spring. (see para 43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus / SHIBATA by substituting the coil spring with a torsional or clock spring as taught by Beishline in order to reduce the overall package size and drives the actuator at a point in the system that maximizes mechanical advantage, thereby improving reliability. (see para 42 of Beishline)
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have a clock spring.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martus et al. (US 20100084210 A1) in view of Courville et al. (US 20240401648 A1) (hereinafter “Courville”).
Regarding claim 9, Martus discloses all the elements of a continuous velocity joint assembly as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first portion 70 of the disconnect arrangement comprises an outer housing (e.g. 48 in fig. 3), but fails to disclose the outer housing in which a shaft carrying multiple trunnions is received.
Courville teaches a similar kind of a continuous velocity joint assembly (e.g. CVJ, figs. 1-2, para 22) wherein a first portion of the CVJ comprises an outer housing (20) in which a shaft (14, see para 23, fig. 1) carrying multiple trunnions (40, par 25, fig. 2) is received.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus by adding a shaft carrying multiple trunnions as taught by Courville in order to improve the torque distribution to the wheels, even as the angle of the drive shaft varies due to the operation of the steering and suspension, thereby enhance reliability.
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have the outer housing in which a shaft carrying multiple trunnions is received.
Regarding claim 10, Martus/ Courville discloses the continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 9, Martus further discloses wherein the second portion 68 of the disconnect arrangement is located axially adjacent to the outer housing 48, the disconnect arrangement further comprising a clutching mechanism (66, fig. 3, para 19) that selectively connects the first 70 and second 68 portions together in the connected state and disconnects the first and second portions in the disconnected state.
Regarding claim 13, Martus discloses all the elements of a continuous velocity joint assembly as set forth in claim 1, wherein the first portion 70 of the disconnect arrangement comprises an annular member (e.g. has no character numeral, the member back side of the housing 48) attached to a rotatable housing (e.g. 48 in fig. 3), but fails to disclose the rotatable housing in which a shaft carrying multiple trunnions is received.
Courville teaches a similar kind of a continuous velocity joint assembly (e.g. CVJ, figs. 1-2, para 22) wherein a first portion of the CVJ comprises an annular member (32) attached to a rotatable housing (20) in which a shaft (14, see para 23, fig. 1) carrying multiple trunnions (40, par 25, fig. 2) is received.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus by adding a shaft carrying multiple trunnions as taught by Courville in order to improve the torque distribution to the wheels, even as the angle of the drive shaft varies due to the operation of the steering and suspension, thereby enhance reliability.
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have the rotating housing in which a shaft carrying multiple trunnions is received.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martus et al. (US 20100084210 A1) in view of Courville et al. (US 20240401648 A1) and further in view of PRITCHARD (US 20160265602 A1) (hereinafter “PRITCHARD”).
Regarding claim 11, Martus/ Courville discloses the continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the clutching mechanism comprises a shiftable collar having splines defined on its inner circumference, at least one of the first portion and the second portion having splines on an outer circumference slidably engaged by the splines of the shiftable collar.
PRITCHARD teaches a similar kind of a disconnect arrangement (e.g. 50, figs. 1-3, paras 23-26) wherein a clutching mechanism (52, fig. 2B, para 31) comprises a shiftable collar (e.g. sleeve 86) having splines defined on its inner circumference, at least one of the first portion (74) and the second portion (68) having splines on an outer circumference slidably engaged by the splines of the shiftable collar (86).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martus/ Courville by substituting the actuation mechanism with the shifting mechanism as taught by PRITCHARD in order to improve significantly the performance of vehicle powertrain systems by enabling simple and space-efficient implementation of selective rotational torque interruption. More specifically, those having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the wheel-end disconnect assembly is configured such that the coil of the actuator need not be continually supplied with electrical current to maintain the relative clutch assembly configuration. Moreover, it will be appreciated that the electromagnetic actuator can be configured so as to significantly minimize the overall packaging size of the wheel-end disconnect assembly while, at the same time, affording significant improvements in vehicle powertrain functionality. (see para 11 of PRITCHARD)
As modified, the continuous velocity joint assembly would have the clutching mechanism comprises a shiftable collar having splines defined on its inner circumference, at least one of the first portion and the second portion having splines on an outer circumference slidably engaged by the splines of the shiftable collar.
Regarding claim 12, Martus/ Courville discloses the continuous velocity joint assembly as modified according to claim 11, PRITCHARD further teaches wherein a shiftable collar (86,fig. 2B, para 31) defines an annular groove about its outer circumference engaged by a fork (88) such that the collar can rotate with respect to the fork, but shifting movement of the fork moves the collar axially.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 18 are objected to as been dependent upon the rejected claims 13, and 17, respectively but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C 112 (pre-AiA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this office action.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
LEE et al. (US 20220389997 A1) teaches a similar kind disconnect device (e.g. 200, fig. 1) wherein the electromechanical actuator comprises a screw-type actuator.
Guo (US 20090321170 A1) teaches a disconnect system for selectively connecting or disconnecting a wheel-side shaft and a differential-side shaft having a common axis of rotation in a drivetrain of a motor vehicle. In the axle disconnect an output gear is splined to the wheel-side shaft on an outside diameter of the wheel-side shaft, and a translatable collar is splined to the output gear on an outside diameter of the output gear. The collar is arranged to be translated along the common axis of rotation for splined connection with the differential-side shaft while retaining the splined connection with the output gear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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 on 5712703415. 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.
/FARHANA PERVIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3655