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.
Claims 1-10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibayama et al. (US Patent 5,402,676; hereinafter Shibayama).
With regards to claim 1, Shibayama discloses a method of evaluating a vehicle differential assembly on a vehicle (abstract and col. 1, lines 7-15; FIG. 1 and 7) comprising:
positioning a vehicle (motorcar) on a test stand (FIG. 1, 7), wherein the test stand (FIG. 1) comprises rollers (1a, 1b of 11-12) for receiving wheel assemblies of the vehicle (col. 5, lines 14-23);
rotating a first wheel assembly of the vehicle on the test stand (col. 5, lines 14-23) to impart a differential rotation of the first wheel assembly (front left wheel) relative to a second wheel assembly (front right wheel) of the vehicle (col. 7, lines 7-15); and
evaluating a differential assembly disposed between the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly (col. 7, lines 16-51).
With regards to claim 2, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second wheel assembly (front left wheel) is opposed on the opposite side of the vehicle from the first wheel assembly (front right wheel; col. 7, lines 7-15).
With regards to claim 3, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said rotating comprises rotating the first wheel assembly at a different rotational speed than the second wheel assembly (col. 7, lines 41-61).
With regards to claim 4, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising rotating a third wheel assembly (rear left wheel; FIG. 4) of the vehicle on the test stand to impart a differential rotation of the third wheel assembly relative to an opposed fourth wheel assembly (rear right wheel; FIG. 4) of the vehicle, and wherein said evaluating further comprises evaluating another differential assembly disposed between the third wheel assembly and the fourth wheel assembly (col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 12 and col. 10, lines 14-29).
With regards to claim 5, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 4, wherein said rotating the third wheel assembly to impart a differential rotation of the third wheel assembly relative to the opposed fourth wheel assembly comprises rotating the first wheel assembly at a different rotational speed than the second wheel assembly (col. 10, lines 30-53).
With regards to claim 6, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the first wheel assembly (left 11) comprises a front left wheel assembly, the second wheel assembly (right 11) comprises a front right wheel assembly, and the differential assembly comprises a front differential assembly (31), and wherein the third wheel assembly (left 12) comprises a rear left wheel assembly, the fourth wheel assembly (right 12) comprise a rear right wheel assembly, and the another differential assembly (32) comprises a rear differential assembly (col. 4, lines 23-45; FIG. 1).
With regards to claim 7, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said method comprises rotating the front left wheel assembly and the rear left wheel assembly at a slower rotational speed than the front right wheel assembly and the rear right wheel assembly to simulate a left turn (col. 8, line 10 to col. 9, line 26).
With regards to claim 8, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said method comprises rotating the front left wheel assembly and the rear left wheel assembly at a faster rotational speed than the front right wheel assembly and the rear right wheel assembly to simulate a right turn (col. 8, line 10 to col. 9, line 26).
With regards to claim 9, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the wheel assemblies of the vehicle are driven by the vehicle to impart rotation to the rollers of the test stand (col. 5, lines 14-23).
With regards to claim 10, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the wheel assemblies of the vehicle are driven by the rollers of the test stand (col. 7, line 62 to col. 8, line 9 and col. 9, line 64 to col. 10, line 13).
With regards to claim 13, Shibayama discloses a method of evaluating a vehicle differential assembly on a vehicle (abstract and col. 1, lines 7-15; FIG. 1 and 7) comprising:
positioning a vehicle (motorcar) on a test stand (FIG. 1, 7), wherein the test stand (FIG. 1) comprises rollers (1a, 1b of 11-12) for receiving wheel assemblies of the vehicle (col. 5, lines 14-23);
rotating a first pair of opposed wheel assemblies of the vehicle on the test stand (col. 5, lines 14-23) at a first rotational speed that is different than a rotational speed of a second pair of opposed wheel assemblies to impart a differential rotation at a differential assembly disposed between the first and second pair of opposed wheel assemblies (col. 5, lines 14-31); and
evaluating the differential assembly disposed between the first and second pair of wheel assemblies (col. 5, line 14 to col. 6, line 13).
With regards to claim 14, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 13, wherein said rotating comprises rotating the second pair of opposed wheel assemblies at either a faster or a slower rotational speed than the first pair of opposed wheel assemblies (col. 5, lines 14-34).
With regards to claim 15, Shibayama discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the wheel assemblies of the vehicle are driven by the vehicle to impart rotation to the rollers of the test stand (col. 5, lines 14-23) or wherein the wheel assemblies of the vehicle are driven by the rollers of the test stand (col. 9, line 64 to col. 10, line 13).
With regards to claim 16, Shibayama discloses a system (FIG. 1) for evaluating a vehicle differential assembly on a vehicle, said system comprising: a test stand (FIG. 7), said test stand comprising rollers (11, 12) for receiving wheel assemblies of a vehicle (col. 4, lines 23-45); and a computer control (10); wherein said test stand is configured to enable or allow at least one the wheel assemblies of the vehicle to be rotated at a different rotational speed than another wheel assembly of the vehicle for evaluation of a vehicle differential assembly of the vehicle (col. 8, lines 10-25 and col. 10, lines 14-53).
With regards to claim 17, Shibayama discloses the system of claim 16 wherein said computer control is configured to selectively enable or allow wheel assemblies of the vehicle to be rotated at different rotational speeds (col. 10, lines 14-53).
With regards to claim 18, Shibayama discloses the system of claim 16, wherein said test stand enables or allows a wheel assembly on one side of the vehicle to be rotated at a different rotational speed than a corresponding wheel assembly on the opposite side of the vehicle for evaluating a differential assembly disposed there between (col. 8, lines 10-25 and col. 10, lines 14-53).
With regards to claim 19, Shibayama discloses the system of claim 18, wherein said test stand enables front and rear wheel assemblies on one side of the vehicle to be rotated at a different rotational speed than corresponding front and rear wheel assemblies on the opposite side of the vehicle for evaluating differential assemblies disposed between the front wheel assemblies and between the rear wheel assemblies (col. 5, line 14 to col 6, line 13).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibayama et al. (US Patent 5,402,676; hereinafter Shibayama) in view of Balboni et al. (US Publication 2020/0309641; hereinafter Balboni).
With regards to claim 11, Shibayama teaches the method of claim 1. However, Shibayama is silent regarding wherein said evaluating comprises evaluating a differential assembly by sounds and/or vibrations from the differential assembly.
Balboni teaches a system and method for monitoring a vehicle axle (abstract). Balboni further teaches a method of evaluating a differential assembly by sounds and/or vibrations from the differential assembly (via inertia measurement unit 4; [0092, 0094]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of using the inertia measurement unit as taught by Balboni to the method as taught by Shibayama to additionally sense anomalous periodic vibrations caused by worn or damaged gears and/or bearings within the differential assembly ([0092]; Balboni).
With regards to claim 12, Shibayama, as combined with Balboni, teaches the method of claim 11, wherein said evaluating comprises evaluating sounds and/or vibrations from the differential assembly using sensors ([0092, 0094]; Balboni).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG X.L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, STEPHEN D. MEIER can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/QXN/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/STEPHEN D MEIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
