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
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, 2, and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SWINGER (US 11,231,098).
Regarding claim 1, SWINGER discloses a differential device (11), comprising a cage (14), a carrier (24) and a disconnect coupling having radially protruding splines (42) configured to selectively connect the carrier (24) to the cage (14).
Regarding claim 2, SWINGER discloses the radially protruding splines (42) are arranged on an axially moveable dog member (26).
Regarding claim 8, SWINGER discloses a differential device (11), comprising a cage (14), a carrier (24), and a disconnect coupling having a dog member (26) arranged radially between the carrier (24) and the cage (14).
Regarding claim 9, SWINGER discloses the dog member (26) is provided with radially protruding splines (42) configured to selectively connect the carrier (24) to the cage (14).
Regarding claim 10, SWINGER discloses a vehicle, comprising the differential device (11) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, SWINGER discloses the radially protruding splines are arranged on a first side of the dog member, and wherein the dog member further comprises a second set of splines on a second side.
Regarding claim 12, SWINGER discloses the radially protruding splines are facing the carrier and configured to selectively engage with mating splines of the carrier.
Regarding claim 13, SWINGER discloses the second set of splines of the dog member are in constant engagement with mating splines of the cage.
Regarding claim 14, SWINGER discloses the dog member is rigidly attached to a controllable sleeve (46).
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) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWINGER (US 11,231,098) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 8-14 above, and further in view of KARAMBELAS et al. (US 2002/0112934 A1).
Regarding claim 3, SWINGER discloses the radially protruding splines (42), but does not disclose the being arranged in at least two parallel rows.
KARAMBELAS teaches a disconnect for a vehicle transmission apparatus that uses splines (46, 34) with two parallel rows.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of SWINGER, such that the splines would be arranged in at least two parallel rows, as taught by KARAMBELAS. KARAMBELAS references US 5394967 in regards to the double row splines. US 5394967 teaches “the tandem arrangement doubles the contact area as between the engaging splines for the same degree of overlap as opposed to previous arrangements wherein there was a singular engagement of one spline with another,” col. 4, lines 19-23.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of SWINGER-KARAMBELAS discloses the radially protruding splines (42) are arranged on a first side of the dog member (26), and wherein the dog member (26) further comprises a second set of splines (41) on a second side.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of SWINGER-KARAMBELAS discloses the radially protruding splines (42) are facing the carrier (24) and configured to selectively engage with mating splines (43) of the carrier (24).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of SWINGER-KARAMBELAS discloses the second set of splines (41) of the dog member (26) are in constant engagement with mating splines (31) of the cage (14).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of SWINGER-KARAMBELAS discloses the dog member (26) is rigidly attached to a controllable sleeve (46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK D. KNIGHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7951. The examiner can normally be reached Telework: From 5:30am-1:30pm 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.
/DEREK D KNIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights