DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 01/25/2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 01/25/2023.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-22 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application claims foreign priority to DE 102022/201180, filed on 02/04/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 1-2 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the 103 combination between Nakagawa and Lackey is not valid because it is neither a) the same field of endeavor, or b) reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Examiner respectfully disagrees and believes that Lackey is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Nakagawa is directed to “a seal material in the fitting contact region 38 between the projections 35 and the recesses 36, and in a gap 40, thereby forming a foreign-matter intrusion prevention means W (W3). In this case, there is applied to the surfaces of the projections 35 a seal material (seal agent) selected from among various resins curable after the application and capable of exerting sealing property in the fitting contact region 38” [0118]. Lackey is directed to a) “maintaining a seal between… the metal fitting… a lubricant is used to facilitate sliding.. onto the fitting” [0003], b) an “uncured adhesive 32… applied to.. surface… Before curing, the adhesive 32 is fluid and functions as a lubricant to facilitate the sliding movement between… the fitting 14. This provides the benefit of reducing the force required to slide” [0014], and c) “the fitting 14 in this example include several imperfections 34… the imperfections 34 are surface scratches, micro-cracks, scoring marks or the like… the uncured adhesive 32 has a viscosity suitable to allow the adhesive 32 to flow into the imperfections 34. The degree to which the adhesive 32 fills the imperfections 34 depends on the size of the imperfections and the viscosity of the adhesive 32. With time, the adhesive 32 cures into a solid material and bonds… the fitting 14” [0015]. Nakagawa and Lackey are both directed towards i) a sealing material (i.e. adhesive) applied to ii) a “fitting” that is iii) mating with another member iv) in a press fit manner. The fact that Lackey is directed towards a hose and not a CV joint is why they are not the same field of endeavor, but the fact that Nakagawa and Lackey share four clear pertinent overlaps (i-iv) means that the teachings of Lackey are highly likely to have been found by one of ordinary skill in the art during a routine prior art search. Therefore, Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. inventor) would have found the teachings of Lackey reasonably pertinent to the disclosure of Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that Nakagawa does not disclose treating a surface to have an increased coefficient of friction of the surface (“It is respectfully submitted that friction involves a force required to slide one object over another. Forming interlocking structures to prevent two objects from rotating relative to one another would not be referred to by persons of ordinary skill in the art as increasing the coefficient of friction of one of the surfaces”). Examiner respectfully disagrees because a) friction does not just involved a force required to slide on object over another (there are many kinds of friction: static friction, kinetic friction: dry sliding friction, lubricated sliding friction, boundary layer friction, surface-specific friction that can vary with local geometries such as gear teeth sizes, etc.), and the coefficient of friction can also be different in different directions (high rotational coefficient of friction with low axial coefficient of friction, etc.); b) treating a surface to have interlocking projections and grooves increases the coefficient of friction of the surfaces by increasing the effective contact area between the two parts. Applicant further admits this by saying “forming interlocking structures to prevent two objects from rotating relative to one another…”, this act of preventing the objects from rotating is synonymous with (drastically) increasing the rotational coefficient friction of the surfaces of the two parts. Furthermore, even in the axial direction, increasing the surface area contact between two press fit parts by adding treating the surface to have projections and grooves would result in (slightly) increasing the axial coefficient of friction. Therefore, it is clear that the projections and grooves of Nakagawa increase the coefficient of friction, both in the axial (sliding) direction (slightly) and the rotational direction (drastically). The only reason this limitation can be considered to not be disclosed by Nakagawa is if one believes that forming the grooves and projections is not a surface treatment. This argument does not hold up either, because the phrase “treating a surface” is broad, it is not limited to phosphating, etching, galvanizing, sandblasting, or shotblasting like in claim 3. Machining or forming an external surface of a part to have grooves or protrusions falls under the category of treating the surface of those parts. Therefore, for these reasons, Examiner maintains that Nakagawa discloses all the aspects of claim 2.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to claims 10 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive, Nakagawa does not disclose the first portion of the shaft and the first portion of the bore are both cylindrical or are both conical. Therefore, the rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn, and claims 10 and 20 are in condition for allowance.
Claim Objections
Claim 10, line 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the opening” should read, “the bore”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 2016/0136995) in view of Lackey (US 2009/0174180).
Regarding claim 1, Nakagawa discloses a method for connecting a constant velocity joint {3 (5, 6)} having a bell {11 [0103]} and a shaft {12: “The constant-velocity universal joint 3 mainly includes an outer ring 5 as an outer joint member, an inner ring 6 as an inner joint member… The outer ring 5 includes a mouth section 11 and a stem section (shaft section) 12” [0102-0103]} to a wheel bearing {1+2} having an opening {22}, the shaft {12} being oversized relative to the opening {22}, the method comprising: applying an adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]} to the shaft {12 (35, see Figs. 9-10): “there is applied to the surfaces of the projections 35 a seal material (seal agent) selected from among various resins curable after the application” [0118]} and/or the opening {22: “there is applied a seal material (seal agent) selected from among various resins curable after the application and capable of exerting sealing property between the tapered locking piece 65 and the inner diameter surface of the tapered hole 22b” [0116]}, pressing the shaft {12} into the opening {22} to form a press connection between the shaft {12} and the wheel bearing {1+2: “the stem shaft 12 is press-fit into the hub wheel 1” [0119]}, and curing the adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]} or allowing the adhesive to cure {“there is applied a seal material (seal agent) selected from among various resins curable after the application” [0116]}.
However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the adhesive in an uncured state is configured to reduce a coefficient of friction between the shaft and the opening.
Lackey teaches an adhesive in an uncured state being configured to reduce a coefficient of friction between two concentrically assembled parts {“the adhesive is a microencapsulated two-part epoxy adhesive that functions as a lubricant when assembling the hose onto the fitting before curing” (Abstract)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive of the method disclosed by Nakagawa, such that the adhesive in an uncured state is configured to reduce a coefficient of friction between the shaft and the opening, as taught by Lackey, in order to facilitate sliding between the shaft and the opening in order to reduce the force required to press-fit the two parts {“Before curing, the adhesive 32 is fluid and functions as a lubricant to facilitate the sliding movement between the hose 12 and the fitting 14. This provides the benefit of reducing the force required to slide the hose 12 over the fitting 14” [0014]}.
Regarding claim 2, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses before applying the adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]}, treating a surface of the shaft {12} and/or the opening {22} in the region of a to-be-formed press connection in order to increase a coefficient of friction of the surface {treated to have projections 35 (on shaft 12) and grooves 36 (in opening 22) that increase friction between the shaft and opening (Fig. 4)}.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Lackey as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Rossia (IT 2018/00021025).
Regarding claim 8, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1.
Nakagawa further discloses the press connection is configured to transmit torque between the wheel bearing {1+2} and the shaft {12: “the entire fitting regions contribute to torque transmission, stable torque transmission is possible, and noise is not caused” [0142]}.
However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the press connection is configured to transmit at least 4000 Nm of torque between the wheel bearing and the shaft.
Rossia teaches transmitting at least 4000 Nm of torque to each wheel of a vehicle {“provide a power equal to 2P, that is, preferably between 160kW and 300 kW; corresponding to approximately 10000 Nm of torque to the wheels. More preferably, the module 1 of figure 3 can also comprise reduction gears with epicyclic wheels located at the output of the half-shafts, or to the wheels, to further increase the reduction ratio, up to a maximum of 2-3 times. For example, it is possible to obtain wheel torques with a value greater than 10000Nm, for example, for heavy vehicles up to 18 tons, it is possible to reach supplied torques of the order of 30,000 Nm total” [0023]} via a shaft {4, 5} of a CV joint {18, 19}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the press connection is configured to transmit at least 4000 Nm of torque between the wheel bearing and the shaft, as taught by Rossia, in order to accommodate for the weight of heavier vehicles [0023].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-14, and 16-22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses a subassembly comprising:
a wheel bearing having a bore, the bore having a first portion, and
a constant velocity joint having a bell and a shaft, a first portion of the shaft extending into the bore and forming a press fit with the first portion of the bore,
wherein the shaft is oversized relative to the opening and connected to the wheel bearing by a press fit that is configured to transmit torque between the wheel bearing and the shaft,
wherein a layer of adhesive is provided between the shaft and the wheel bearing,
wherein the adhesive in an uncured state is configured to reduce a coefficient of friction between the shaft and the bore, and
wherein either the first portion of the bore and the first portion of the shaft are both conical or the first portion of the bore and the first portion of the shaft are both cylindrical.
Accordingly, claims 11-14, and 16-19 are allowable by virtue of dependence from claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, none of the prior art of record filed before the effective filing date, either alone or in obvious combination, discloses a method for connecting a constant velocity joint having a bell and a shaft to a wheel bearing having a bore via a press-fit, wherein the shaft includes a first portion configured to form a press-fit with a first portion of the bore and wherein the first portion of the shaft and the first portion of the bore are both cylindrical or are both conical, the first portion of the shaft being oversized relative to the first portion of the bore, the method comprising:
applying an adhesive to the first portion of the shaft and/or the first portion of the bore, the adhesive in an uncured state being configured to reduce a coefficient of friction between the shaft and the bore,
pressing the shaft into the bore to form the press-fit between the shaft and the wheel bearing, and curing the adhesive or allowing the adhesive to cure.
Accordingly, claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 21-22 are allowable by virtue of dependence from claim 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614
Prosecution Insights