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 Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 01/25/2023.
Claims 1-19 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “8 to 15%o” should read, “8 to 15%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “8 to 15%o” should read, “8 to 15%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17, line 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and/or shotblasted ” should read, “and/or shotblasted.”. 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, 4, 9-11, and 15-16 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)}.
Regarding claim 4, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the shaft is oversized relative to the opening by 8% to 15%.
However, Nakagawa further discloses the shaft {12} is oversized relative to the opening {22: “When this bearing device for a wheel is assembled, as described later, the recesses 36 are formed by the projections 35 by press-fitting the stem shaft 12 of the outer ring 5 into the hub wheel 1. When the stem shaft 12 is press-fit into the hub wheel 1, a material is extruded from the recesses 36 formed by the projections 35 and an extruded portion 45 (see FIG. 3) is formed” [0119]; “as illustrated in FIG. 4, an inner diameter dimension D of the inner diameter surface 37 of the hole 22 is set smaller than a maximum outer diameter of the projections 35, i.e., a maximum diameter dimension (circumscribed circle) D1 of a circle connecting vertexes of the projections 35” [0123]; “as illustrated in FIG. 4, when a diameter difference (D1−D) between the maximum diameter dimension D1 of the stem shaft 12 and the inner diameter dimension D of the fitting hole 22a of the hole 22 of the hub wheel 1 is represented as Δd, the height of the projections 35 provided on the outer diameter surface of the stem shaft 12 is represented as h, and a ratio of the diameter difference and the height is represented as Δd/2h, a relation among the diameter difference, the height, and the ratio is 0.3<Δd/2h<0.86. Consequently, the projecting direction intermediate regions (height direction intermediate regions) of the projections 35 are surely arranged on the recess formation surface before recess formation. Therefore, the projections 35 bite in the recess formation surface during press fitting and the recesses 36 can be surely formed” [0131]}.
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 shaft is oversized relative to the opening by 8% to 15%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Nakagawa further discloses a subassembly {Fig. 1} formed by the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Nakagawa discloses a subassembly {Fig. 1} comprising: a wheel bearing {1+2} having an opening {22}, and a constant velocity joint {3 (5, 6)} having a bell {11} 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]}, the shaft {12} extending into the opening {22}, wherein the shaft {12} is oversized relative to the opening {22} and connected to the wheel bearing {1+2} by a press connection that is configured to transmit torque between the wheel bearing {1+2} and the shaft {12}, wherein a layer of adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]} is provided between 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 the opening {22} of the wheel bearing {1+2: “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]}.
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 subassembly 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 11, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the shaft is oversized relative to the opening by 8% to 15%.
However, Nakagawa further discloses the shaft {12} is oversized relative to the opening {22: “When this bearing device for a wheel is assembled, as described later, the recesses 36 are formed by the projections 35 by press-fitting the stem shaft 12 of the outer ring 5 into the hub wheel 1. When the stem shaft 12 is press-fit into the hub wheel 1, a material is extruded from the recesses 36 formed by the projections 35 and an extruded portion 45 (see FIG. 3) is formed” [0119]; “as illustrated in FIG. 4, an inner diameter dimension D of the inner diameter surface 37 of the hole 22 is set smaller than a maximum outer diameter of the projections 35, i.e., a maximum diameter dimension (circumscribed circle) D1 of a circle connecting vertexes of the projections 35” [0123]; “as illustrated in FIG. 4, when a diameter difference (D1−D) between the maximum diameter dimension D1 of the stem shaft 12 and the inner diameter dimension D of the fitting hole 22a of the hole 22 of the hub wheel 1 is represented as Δd, the height of the projections 35 provided on the outer diameter surface of the stem shaft 12 is represented as h, and a ratio of the diameter difference and the height is represented as Δd/2h, a relation among the diameter difference, the height, and the ratio is 0.3<Δd/2h<0.86. Consequently, the projecting direction intermediate regions (height direction intermediate regions) of the projections 35 are surely arranged on the recess formation surface before recess formation. Therefore, the projections 35 bite in the recess formation surface during press fitting and the recesses 36 can be surely formed” [0131]}.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the shaft is oversized relative to the opening by 8% to 15%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Nakagawa further discloses a first region {35} of the shaft {12} is cylindrical {Figs. 2A, 9-10}.
Regarding claim 16, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10. Nakagawa further discloses a surface of the shaft {12} located inside the opening the opening {22} is surface treated to have an increased coefficient of friction {treated to have projections 35 (on shaft 12) and grooves 36 (in opening 22) that increase friction between the shaft and opening (Fig. 4)}.
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa and Lackey as applied to claims 2 and 16 above, and further in view of Vlemmings (WO 2006/106002).
Regarding claim 3, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the treating comprises phosphating, etching, galvanizing, sandblasting and/or shotblasting.
Vlemmings teaches treating a surface {15} of a shaft {10} and/or an opening {central opening of 11+13, which shaft 10 engages at connection point 12: “In Fig. 2, a collar 13 surrounding a central opening of the disc-shaped tolerance compensation device 11 is formed at the connection point 12, wherein the tolerance compensation device 11 is arranged axially behind an end face 14 of the shaft 10” [0023]} in the region of a to-be-formed connection {12} in order to increase a coefficient of friction of the surface {15: “A surface 15 of the shaft 10 and/or the tolerance compensation medium 11 is roughened in a defined manner, at least in the area of the joint 12… which allows for higher frictional heat” [0022]}, wherein the treating comprises sandblasting {“roughened… for example by sandblasting” [0022]}.
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 treating comprises phosphating, etching, galvanizing, sandblasting and/or shotblasting, as taught by Vlemmings, in order to achieve a “higher frictional heat and thus a stronger binding mechanism” [0022].
Regarding claim 17, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10. However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the surface is phosphated, etched, galvanized, sandblasted and/or shotblasted.
Vlemmings teaches treating a surface {15} of a shaft {10} and/or an opening {central opening of 11+13, which shaft 10 engages at connection point 12: “In Fig. 2, a collar 13 surrounding a central opening of the disc-shaped tolerance compensation device 11 is formed at the connection point 12, wherein the tolerance compensation device 11 is arranged axially behind an end face 14 of the shaft 10” [0023]} in the region of a to-be-formed connection {12} in order to increase a coefficient of friction of the surface {15: “A surface 15 of the shaft 10 and/or the tolerance compensation medium 11 is roughened in a defined manner, at least in the area of the joint 12… which allows for higher frictional heat” [0022]}, wherein the treating comprises sandblasting {“roughened… for example by sandblasting” [0022]}.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the surface is phosphated, etched, galvanized, sandblasted and/or shotblasted, as taught by Vlemmings, in order to achieve a “higher frictional heat and thus a stronger binding mechanism” [0022].
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa and Lackey as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Tsuchiya (US 2013/0136386).
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1. However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the adhesive is an anaerobically curing adhesive and/or a chemically curing adhesive.
Tsuchiya teaches an adhesive positioned {6 (Fig. 3)} between a shaft {12} and an opening {inside of 11 (Fig. 3)} of a bearing {1 (13)} is an anaerobically curing adhesive {“UV curable anaerobic adhesive” [0027]}.
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 adhesive is an anaerobically curing adhesive and/or a chemically curing adhesive, as taught by Tsuchiya, “because in addition to the small amount of outgas generated, the curing time of the adhesive to obtain proper adhesive strength can be greatly shortened and the tack is eliminated” [0027].
Regarding claim 12, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10. However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the adhesive is an anaerobically curing adhesive and/or a chemically curing adhesive.
Tsuchiya teaches an adhesive positioned {6 (Fig. 3)} between a shaft {12} and an opening {inside of 11 (Fig. 3)} of a bearing {1 (13)} is an anaerobically curing adhesive {“UV curable anaerobic adhesive” [0027]}.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the adhesive is an anaerobically curing adhesive and/or a chemically curing adhesive, as taught by Tsuchiya, “because in addition to the small amount of outgas generated, the curing time of the adhesive to obtain proper adhesive strength can be greatly shortened and the tack is eliminated” [0027].
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa and Lackey as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Revillot (WO 2012/069770).
Regarding claim 6, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 1.
Nakagawa further discloses the shaft {12} includes a first region {35} and a second region {R2 (Annotated Fig. 10)}, the first region {35} being located between the second region {R2} and the bell {11}, wherein the opening {22} is a through opening {22a}, wherein applying the adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]} comprises applying the adhesive to the first region {35: “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 wherein the method further comprises inserting the second region {R2} through the through opening {22a} such that the second region {R2} projects from the through opening {22a (Fig. 3)} and the first region {35 (of shaft 12)} forms the press connection {“a press-fitting direction in coupling the hub wheel 1 and the stem shaft 12 of the outer ring 5” [0106]} with the through opening {22a (of 1, Figs. 1-4): “plural recesses 36 to be fit in the projections 35 are formed circumferentially in the inner diameter surface 37 of the shaft section fitting hole 22a of the hole 22 of the hub wheel 1” [0111]}.
PNG
media_image1.png
417
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakagawa Annotated Fig. 10
However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the second region including a thread.
Revillot teaches a region of a shaft {3} including a thread {“said hub having a bore 6 allowing it to be threaded on the shaft 3” [0039]}.
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 second region includes a thread, as taught by Revillot, in order to reach “a predetermined tightening torque corresponding to the desired intensity of the clamping force in axial compression” [0149].
Regarding claim 13, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10.
Nakagawa further discloses the shaft {12} includes a first region {35} and a second region {R2 (Annotated Fig. 10)}, the first region {35} being located between the second region {R2} and the bell {11}, wherein the opening {22} is a through opening {22a}, wherein the adhesive {“seal material (seal agent)” [0116]} is applied to the first region {35}, and wherein the second region {R2} projects out of the through opening {22a (Fig. 3)} and the press connection {“a press-fitting direction in coupling the hub wheel 1 and the stem shaft 12 of the outer ring 5” [0106]} is formed between the first region {35 (of 12)} and the opening {22 (of 1, Figs. 1-4): “plural recesses 36 to be fit in the projections 35 are formed circumferentially in the inner diameter surface 37 of the shaft section fitting hole 22a of the hole 22 of the hub wheel 1” [0111]}.
However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the second region including a thread.
Revillot teaches a region of a shaft {3} including a thread {“said hub having a bore 6 allowing it to be threaded on the shaft 3” [0039]}.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the second region includes a thread, as taught by Revillot, in order to reach “a predetermined tightening torque corresponding to the desired intensity of the clamping force in axial compression” [0149].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Lackey, and Revillot as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of Rossia (IT 2018/00021025).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagawa, Lackey, and Revillot disclose all the aspects of claim 6.
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, Lackey and Revillot, 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].
Regarding claim 14, Nakagawa, Lackey, and Revillot disclose all the aspects of claim 13.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa, Lackey and Revillot, 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].
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Lackey as applied to claims 1 and 10 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].
Regarding claim 19, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10.
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 subassembly 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].
Claims 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa, Lackey as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2018/0304678).
Regarding claim 18, Nakagawa and Lackey disclose all the aspects of claim 10. However, Nakagawa does not explicitly disclose the shaft is hollow.
Kobayashi teaches the shaft {16} of a CV joint {11} is hollow {Fig. 1: “A hollow shaft 16 is coupled to the constant velocity universal joint 11” [0041]}.
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 subassembly disclosed by Nakagawa and Lackey, such that the shaft is hollow, as taught by Kobayashi, “in order to attain reduction in weight and cost of the constant velocity universal joint” [0006].
Conclusion
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 on (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