DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/997897 filed 1/23/2025.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/23/25 has been considered.
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 2-6 and 8 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.
-Claims 2-6 and 8, recite the term "particularly", this term renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brammer et al 9784355 (corresponds to IDS cited art DE 112017004344). As to claims 1 and 11, Brammer discloses a transmission device for a motor vehicle, having a differential (414, 614) which is connectable or connected to a side shaft (402, 602) of the transmission device by a differential side gear shaft (416, 616), wherein the transmission device has a coupling device (400, 600) which is configured to selectively couple the side shaft to the differential side gear shaft or decouple the side shaft from the differential side gear shaft, wherein the coupling device has a coupling element (468, 676, 678) which is movable between at least two coupling positions (Figures 4, 5, 7, 8) and which is provided for coupling between the side shaft and differential side gear shaft and for locking the differential (Figures 6 and 9).
As to claim 2, wherein the coupling element decouples the side shaft from the differential side gear shaft in a first coupling position, particularly a disconnect position, particularly when the differential is open (as shown in Figures 4 and 7).
As to claim 3, wherein the coupling element couples the side shaft with the differential side gear shaft in a second coupling position, particularly when the differential is open (as shown in Figures 5 and 8).
As to claim 4, wherein the coupling element couples an input of the differential, particularly a differential carrier, with the side shaft and the differential side gear shaft in a third coupling position, particularly in a coupled locking position (as shown in Figures 6 and 9).
As to claim 5, wherein the coupling positions of the coupling element are arranged linearly one behind the other, particularly with respect to a rotational axis of the side shaft or of the differential side gear shaft (as shown in Figures 4-6 and 7-9 on same axis).
As to claim 6, wherein the coupling device is arranged outside of the differential, particularly coaxial to the side shaft (as shown in Figures 4 and 7).
As to claim 7, wherein the coupling element has a first toothing portion (702) which meshes with a second toothing portion (634) of the differential side gear shaft when the coupling element and differential side gear shaft are in a coupled state with one another, and the input of the differential has a third toothing portion (674) which meshes with the first toothing portion or a fourth toothing portion (726) arranged at the coupling element when the coupling element and the input of the differential are in a coupled state with one another.
As to claim 8, wherein the coupling device, particularly the coupling element, has at least two identical toothing portions (Figure 7 via 702, 726) and/or at least two different toothing portions (Figure 4 via 480, 482).
As to claim 9, wherein the coupling device has a spring device (680) which is configured to build up a preloading force on the coupling element in at least one actuating direction when a tooth-on-tooth condition occurs (column 22, lines 13-22 describe forcing unblock teeth via spring pressure build-up).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brammer in view of Beesley et al 20170167544. Brammer discloses a spring device (608), but doesn’t disclose the spring between the side gear shaft and side gear as recited.
Beesley discloses an differential axle disconnect system and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a spring (161) between a differential gear shaft (139b) and a side gear (139) for building preload force when a tooth block occurs ([0043]).
It would have been an obvious design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a spring between the side gear shaft and side gear in Brammer in view of Beesley to prevent misalignment and blocking between engagement teeth during operation of device which reduces malfunction of device and wearing of teeth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-The corresponding PCT written opinion has been considered and the examiner agrees that all the prior art cited meets the limitations of at least claim 1.
-WO 2014080279 (Figure 9) and DE 3733153 (Figure 1) disclose a transmission device and discloses the components as recited in claim 1 and therefore would meet the limitations as recited in claim 1.
-Correia et al 7524260 (Figures 9 and 10) and DE 102011010597 (Figures 2-4) both disclose a transmission device that disconnects axles and locks differentials using same coupling element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 September 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights