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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on September 9th, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s argument that “Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the restriction requirement because search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden to the Examiner or the patent office” is not persuasive. As previously stated in the Requirement for Restriction mailed July 31st, 2025, inventions I and II require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The majority of the field of search of invention I includes areas covering electronic control of electromagnetic clutches classified in F16D48/064. The majority of the field of search for invention II covers positive locking differentials classified in F16H48/24. As such, claims 14-20 are hereby withdrawn from consideration.
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/960,499 filed on November 26th, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11th, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 1 (line 3), please change the recitation of “detecting termination of an activation signal for an actuator of a clutch” to - - detecting termination of an activation signal for an actuator of [[a]] the clutch - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 1).
Regarding Claim 1 (line 5), please change the recitation of “the first position” to - - [[the]] a first position - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 1 (line 7), please change the recitation of “than the current of the activation signal” to - - than [[the]] a current of the activation signal - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 1 (line 8), please change the recitation of “determining the position of the clutch” to - - determining [[the]] a position of the clutch - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5 (lines 7-8), please change the recitation of “in a second position” to - - in [[a]] the second position - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 5).
Regarding Claim 6 (line 2), please change the recitation of “the first spike, the duration of the spike, the time between occurrence” to - - the first spike, [[the]] a duration of the spike, [[the]] a time between occurrence - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7, please change the recitation of “wherein the first spike satisfies the at least part of the at least one threshold” to - - wherein the first spike satisfies
Regarding Claim 8 (line 2), please change the recitation of “the termination of an activation signal for the actuator” to - - the termination of [[an]] the activation signal for the actuator - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 3).
Regarding Claim 8 (line 3), please change the recitation of “satisfies the at least part of the at least one threshold” to - - satisfies
Regarding Claim 12 (line 4), please change the recitation of “the clutch is in a second position” to - - the clutch is in [[a]] the second position - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 5).
Regarding Claim 13 (line 1), please change the recitation of “The system of claim 12” to - - The method of claim 12 - - as this feature is previously referred to in claim 1 (line 1).
Regarding Claim 13 (line 3), please change the recitation of “or the time duration of the deviation” to - - or [[the]] a time duration of the deviation - - to establish antecedent basis.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding Claim 10 (lines 2-3), in the recitation of “when the plunger is in a first position than when the plunger is in a second position” the difference between the “first position” and the “second position” recited in claim 1 (line 5) and the “first position” and the “second position” recited in claim 10 (lines 2-3) is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could recite “when the plunger is in [[a]] the first position than when the plunger is in [[a]] the second position” to clarify the recitation and Examiner will interpret the recitation as such during examination. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haupt (US 2017/0219023), in view of Johnson (US 10,982,744). Haupt was cited on the IDS filed March 11th, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Haupt teaches a clutch (Fig. 1, “clutch” 4) of a vehicle driveline disconnect device (“clutch assembly” 2), comprising an actuator (“actuator” 5) of a clutch (4) through which torque is selectively transmitted to one or more axles of a vehicle ([0006] – “The present disclosure relates to a clutch assembly, e.g., for use in the driveline of a motor vehicle, having a clutch and a controllable actuator for operating the clutch such that a first clutch part and a second clutch part optionally can be connected to one another for transmitting torque and can be separated from one another again by being opened. Such clutch assemblies serve to control the transmission of torque between a drive source and a driving axle of a motor vehicle. Included in the disclosure is a drive assembly with such a clutch assembly as well as to a transmission unit, for example a differential drive which divides an introduced torque to the two sideshafts of the driving axle”).
Haupt does not teach “a method of determining the status of a clutch … comprising the steps of: detecting termination of an activation signal for an actuator of a clutch…determining that the clutch is in a second position and not the first position; applying a detection current to the actuator, wherein the detection current is of a lower magnitude than the current of the activation signal; and determining the position of the clutch as a function of the current in the actuator after application of the detection current”.
Johnson teaches a method (see Fig. 14) of determining the status of a clutch (Fig. 2, “locking mechanism” 46) comprising the steps of:
detecting termination of an activation signal for an actuator (“solenoid” 48) of the clutch (46; see Fig. 14; claim 8 – “receiving a signal indicative that the locking mechanism should be in a first position” and claim 9 – “wherein the signal indicative that the locking mechanism should be in the first position is the termination of an actuation signal for the locking mechanism”; col. 9, line 35 – “The process 130 may begin at 132 upon detection of a unlock request signal or upon detecting the termination of power to the coil 49 which indicates that the locking mechanism 46 is now intended to be the unlocked position”),
determining that the clutch (46) is in a second position and not the first position (see Fig. 14; claim 8 – “determining that the locking mechanism is in a second position and not the first position”);
applying a detection current to the actuator (48; claim 8 – “applying a detection current to the locking mechanism”),
wherein the detection current is of a lower magnitude than the current of the activation signal (claim 10 – “wherein the detection current is of lower magnitude than that actuation signal”); and
determining the position of the clutch (46) as a function of the current in the actuator (48) after application of the detection current (claim 8 – “determining the position of the locking mechanism as a function of the current in the locking mechanism after application of the detection current”).
Johnson also teaches “Because activation of the solenoid 48 does not guarantee locking of the differential 23 and deactivation of the solenoid does not guarantee unlocking of the differential, the actual states of the differential 23 may be sensed or determined in one or more ways. For example, the processor 52 may be configured to be able to determine the actual status of the differential 23, i.e. in an open position (FIG. 2), the locked position (FIG. 4), an activated but unlocked position, or in a deactivated but locked position. The processor 52 may determine changes in differential 23 without an independent position sensor and the associated wiring and cost thereof. To this end, processor 52 may execute instructions related to a current profile 78 in the solenoid (see FIG. 5) to determine an actual status of the differential 23” (col. 6, line 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the differential taught by Haupt with the clutch position detection method taught by Johnson, such that “a method of determining the status of a clutch…comprising the steps of: detecting termination of an activation signal for an actuator of a clutch…determining that the clutch is in a second position and not the first position; applying a detection current to the actuator, wherein the detection current is of a lower magnitude than the current of the activation signal; and determining the position of the clutch as a function of the current in the actuator after application of the detection current”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of reliably detecting the operational state of the driveline disconnect clutch taught by Haupt in a cost-effective manner.
Regarding Claim 2, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 1 which also includes,
Johnson teaches when the determined position of the clutch after application of the detection current is not the first position, applying another detection current to the actuator and determining again the position of the clutch after reapplication of the detection current (see Fig. 14; claim 8 – “if the determined position of the locking mechanism after application of the detection current is not the first position, then applying another detection current to the locking mechanism and determining again the position of the locking mechanism after reapplication of the detection current”).
Regarding Claim 3, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 1,
Haupt teaches wherein the clutch (Fig. 1, 4) includes a first clutch member (“second clutch part” 26) and a second clutch member (“first clutch part” 25) that is movable relative to the first clutch member (26), and
a spring (“returning spring” 43) is provided that resists movement of the second clutch member (25) toward the first clutch member (26), and
Johnson teaches wherein the detection current does not provide a force great enough to overcome the spring force to an extent wherein the second clutch member becomes engaged with the first clutch member (col. 10, line 29 – “The detection current may be less than a current used to move the plunger 54 to its advanced position so that the detection current does not cause undesired movement of the plunger”).
Regarding Claim 4, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 1,
Johnson teaches wherein the current in the actuator after application of the detection current is of a magnitude that corresponds to the inductance within the actuator which changes as the position of the actuator changes (claim 11 – “wherein the current in the locking mechanism after application of the detection current is of a magnitude that corresponds to the inductance within the locking mechanism which changes as the position of the locking mechanism changes”).
Regarding Claim 5, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 1,
Haupt teaches wherein the clutch (Fig. 1, 4) includes a first clutch member (26) and a second clutch member (25) that is movable relative to the first clutch member (26), and
the actuator (5) includes a coil (see Fig. 1 and [0051]) and a plunger (“piston” 30) that moves relative to the coil to move the second clutch member (25; [0051] – “actuator 5 comprises an electric magnet 29 as well as a piston 30. The actuator 5 is designed such that the piston 30 is loaded towards the clutch 4 when the electro-magnet is supplied with current. For this purpose, the electro-magnet 29 comprises an annular magnet housing 32 which surrounds a coil and which comprises an aperture 33 at a radial inner end facing the clutch 4”), and
Johnson teaches wherein the activation signal is applied to the coil to cause movement of the plunger in a direction associated with movement of the second clutch member away from the first clutch member (see claims 8-9; see col. 9, line 35 passage above; col. 5, line 1 – “differential 23 illustrated in FIGS. 2 and 3 is shown in an open mode or position (FIG. 2). In the open position, the coil 49 is not powered, the plunger 54 is in its first position and the lock member 56 is not engaged with the side gear 36”),
and the movement of the plunger induces a current in the actuator that causes a first spike in a current profile of the actuator and the step of determining that the clutch is in a second position and not the first position is accomplished by comparison of the first spike to at least one threshold (see Fig. 8; col. 7, line 60 – “FIG. 8 is an illustration of a current profile 80 generated by the transition of the locking mechanism from the locked position to the open position. As can be seen, the current profile 80 illustrated in FIG. 8 includes a precipitous drop represented by the removal of the actuation signal 80. The current profile 78, however, contains a relatively quickly occurring first spike 90 generated by the movement of the plunger 54 relative to the coil 49 and into the open position” and col. 8, line 15 – “To determine whether the locking mechanism 46 has moved to the unlocked position, the first spike 90 may be compared to one or more thresholds”).
Regarding Claim 6, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 5,
Johnson teaches wherein the at least one threshold relates to a magnitude of current change in the first spike, the duration of the spike, the time between occurrence of the spike and receiving the signal, occurrence of the spike before the current in the coil falls below a threshold current, or a combination of two or more of these things (col. 8, line 15 – “To determine whether the locking mechanism 46 has moved to the unlocked position, the first spike 90 may be compared to one or more thresholds (which may individually or collectively be referred to as a second threshold) which may, in at least some implementations, relate to the magnitude 92 of the spike (i.e. the amount of current change during the spike), the duration of the spike, the amount of time between the spike and deactivation of the coil 49, presence of the spike before the current in the coil falls below a threshold, or a combination of two, three or all of these criteria. If the comparison of the first spike 90 is satisfactory (e.g. the magnitude 92 is above a threshold and/or the timing/current threshold is satisfied), then it may be determined that the locking mechanism 46 has moved to the unlocked position (and hence, the differential 23 is in its open position)”).
Regarding Claim 7, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 6,
Johnson teaches wherein the first spike satisfies the at least part of the at least one threshold when the first spike occurs before the current in the coil fully decays (col. 8, line 2 – “first spike 90 may be present in a primary transition of the current profile 80 from a current level associated with continued activation of the locking mechanism (shown in FIG. 8 to be 3.25 amps) to a lower current that may include a fully decayed current at about zero amps. In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, the current decays to zero amps in about 100 ms, and the first spike 90 occurs before full current decay. In at least some implementations, the first spike 90 occurs within 30 to 150 ms of coil deactivation. In at least some implementations, the first spike 90 associated with rapid return of the locking mechanism 46 to the unlocked position may occur before the current decays below approximately 0.005 Amperes”).
Regarding Claim 8, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 6,
Johnson teaches wherein the signal indicative that the clutch should be in the first position is the termination of an activation signal for the actuator (see claims 8-9; see col. 9, line 35 passage above), and
wherein the first spike satisfies the at least part of the at least one threshold when the first spike occurs within 30ms to 150ms of the termination of the activation signal (see col. 8, line 2 passage above).
Regarding Claim 9, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 5,
Johnson teaches wherein the current in the actuator after application of the detection current is of a magnitude that corresponds to the inductance within the actuator which changes as a position of the plunger changes (see claim 11).
Regarding Claim 10, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 9,
Johnson teaches wherein a slope or a peak magnitude, or both, of the current in the actuator after application of the detection current is different when the plunger is in a first position than when the plunger is in a second position (col. 10, line 4 – “When the plunger is in the retracted position the inductance in the assembly is less than when the plunger is in the advanced position. Thus, the slope and/or peak magnitude of a current profile in the coil 49 after application of the detection current will be greater when the plunger 54 is in the retracted position than when the plunger is in the advanced position”).
Regarding Claim 11, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 5,
Johnson teaches wherein the detection current is of lower magnitude than the current of the activation signal (see claim 10).
Regarding Claim 12, Haupt and Johnson teach the method of claim 1,
Johnson teaches wherein the activation signal is applied to the coil to cause movement of the plunger (see claims 8-9; see at least col. 9, line 35 passage above),
and movement of the plunger induces a current in the actuator that creates a first deviation in a current profile of the actuator, and wherein the step of determining that the clutch is in a second position and not the first position is accomplished at least in part by determining if the first deviation occurred in the current profile (col. 6, line 59 – “A portion of the current profile 78, however, contains a first deviation 84 generated by the movement of the plunger 54 relative to the coil 49 and to the locked position (FIG. 4) which induces a current in the coil as noted above” and col. 7, line 31 – “The occurrence of a first deviation 84 of a magnitude smaller than the first threshold is illustrated in FIG. 7 which shows a first deviation magnitude 86.sub.A&U that is of lesser magnitude than the deviation 86.sub.A&L shown in FIG. 6. When a first deviation magnitude 86.sub.A&U less than the first threshold is detected, the system continues to monitor the current profile 78 for occurrence of a second deviation 87 having a second deviation magnitude 88. The second deviation 87 occurs upon further movement of the plunger 54 relative to the coil 49 which induces a current in the coil. This further movement of the plunger 54 indicates that the locking mechanism 46 achieved the locked position after initially failing to do so. Reliably determining the locked position of the locking mechanism 46 and hence the differential 23, can be useful for a wide variety of automotive application”).
Regarding Claim 13, Haupt and Johnson teach the system of claim 12,
Johnson teaches wherein the first deviation has a first deviation magnitude that is based on one or both of a total current change from a start of the first deviation to a peak of the first deviation, or the time duration of the deviation, and wherein the first deviation magnitude is compared to a first threshold to determine if the clutch is in the first position (col. 6, line 63 – “first deviation 84 includes a first deviation magnitude 86 which may be commensurate with the total current change from a start of the deviation to a peak, may relate to the time duration of the deviation, or a combination of the two. The first deviation magnitude 86 (actuated and locked, referred to as “A&L” hereinafter) is representative of the nature of the travel of the locking mechanism 46 to its locked position”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Staniewicz (US 9,105,386) and Nekado (US 6,668,996) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar methods of determining the status of a clutch related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655