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 .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-10 of Group I are elected without traverse.
Claims 11-16 of and Claim 17 are withdrawn, being drawn to unelected Groups II and III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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.
Claims 1-10 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-AAIA 35 U.S.C 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation in lines 7-10: “a suspension pillar comprising a second metal surface butt coupled to the first metal surface of the radially outer ring; a constant velocity joint comprising a fourth metal surface butt coupled to the third metal surface of the radially inner ring;“ the recitation in lines 13-14, “a Mohs hardness greater than a hardness of the second metal surface and greater than a hardness of the fourth metal surface;“ are indefinite because the wheel hub assembly cannot have both a constant velocity joint and a suspension pillar (as described in paragraph 23 of the specification). It is suggested by the examiner that lines 7-10 be changed to “a suspension pillar comprising a second metal surface butt coupled to the first metal surface of the radially outer ring or a constant velocity joint comprising a fourth metal surface butt coupled to the third metal surface of the radially inner ring; “ and lines 13-14 be changed to “a Mohs hardness greater than a hardness of the second metal surface or greater than a hardness of the fourth metal surface;“ for greater clarity.
Regarding Claim 3 and 4, the recitation in line 1, “the matrix”, is indefinite because it is unclear if it is the same or different from “one of an organic matrix or an inorganic matrix” recited in claim 1. If the former, the recitation lacks antecedent basis and should be changed to “a matrix”, if the latter, the recitation should be changed to “one of the organic or the inorganic matrix”, for greater clarity. For the purposes of examining, Examiner has interpreted the limit in claims 3 and 4 to be “one of the organic matrix or the inorganic matrix”.
Regarding Claim 5, the recitation “the coating covers at least one of the second metal surface and the fourth metal surface.”, is indefinite because the wheel hub assembly cannot have both a constant velocity joint with a fourth metal surface and a suspension pillar with a second metal surface (as described in paragraph 23 of the specification, and in paragraph 6 of this document). It is suggested by the examiner that the recitation be changed to “the coating covers either the second metal surface or the fourth metal surface.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 3, 5, 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20100301666-A1 to Shibata (“Shibata”), and further in view of DE-102008017029-A1 to Dorfler (“Dorfler”).
Regarding Claim 1, Shibata discloses a wheel hub assembly (wheel support bearing assembly) comprising: a wheel hub unit (wheel support bearing assembly, Para 32-33 Figs 7-9, of Figs 5, 10) comprising: a radially outer ring (1) comprising a first metal surface (radial surface on inboard side of 1am, known in the art to be made typically of steel with approximate Mohs hardness 5-6); a radially inner ring (2 including 9 “hub axle” and 10 “inner ring”, known in the art to be made typically of steel with approximate Mohs hardness 5-6) comprising a third metal surface (outer surface of 2 ); and a plurality of rolling bodies (5 “rolling elements” between 3 “rolling surfaces” with 6 “retainer” Para 33 ) interposed between (Fig ) the inner ring and the outer ring; a suspension pillar (BRI: suspension strut, link knuckle; [not shown], “knuckle (not shown), forming a part of the vehicle wheel suspension system… with 1a flange fitted thereto”, Para 44, 45, 46 , Figs 7-9 ) comprising a second metal surface (radial inner surface of knuckle that contacts inboard side of 1a) butt coupled (BRI: having a direct connection between contact surfaces abutting therein between; connection formed between radial inner surface of knuckle and inboard side of 1a ), to the first metal surface of the radially outer ring, or a constant velocity joint ( “stem portion [not shown] of constant velocity joint, Para 35) comprising a fourth metal surface (stem portion of constant velocity joint inserted into 11 “center through hole” of 9 of 2, clamped between stepped face on inboard facing side of 2) butt coupled (BRI: having a direct connection between contact surfaces abutting therein between; direct connection between constant velocity joint and stepped face of 9 of 2, Para 35) to the third metal surface of the radially inner ring; a coating ( 17, “UV curable coating” “rust preventive” “acrylic resin” [i.e. UV light-cured varnish”], Para 8-19, Fig 1-10).
Shibata does not disclose a coating comprising: a plurality of hard particles uniformly dispersed in the coating and comprising a Mohs hardness greater than a hardness of the second metal surface greater than a hardness of the fourth metal surface; and one of an organic matrix and an inorganic matrix, wherein the coating covers at least one of the first metal surface and the third metal surface.
Dorfler (FOR “N” PE2E merged image and translation, and NPL “U” Espace.net English Translation pages 1-9) discloses a coating (forming a friction enhancing on surface (2, 2’ and 2’’) of joint between a first and second parts (NPL U, Page 7, Para 30, Page 8 Para 37-39) comprising: a plurality of hard particles (3 corundum [aluminum oxide], [NPL U : Page 7 Para 35, Fig 1]; and with Zinc and having particle size of 25 to 250 µm, [FOR N page 5, Para 8 beginning “Farther there is the …”], Page 5 Para 9 beginning “By using different..”) uniformly dispersed in the coating (Fig 1) and comprising a Mohs hardness (Corundum has a hardness greater than or equal to 9 Mohs) greater than a hardness of the metal surface of first part (2, 2’, 2’’) greater than (hard particles of covering increase the effective hardness of the component the coating is upon, thus being greater than the hardness of the first part) a hardness of the metal surface of second part (hard particles of covering increase the effective hardness of the component the coating is upon, thus being greater than the hardness of the second component fourth component);and one of an organic matrix and an inorganic matrix (Specifically, an inorganic matrix of the hard metallic particles in the layer, Fig 1), wherein the coating covers a surface of the second part (for strikeout font see paragraph 6 of this document).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the a wheel hub assembly and the coating comprising: a plurality of hard particles uniformly dispersed in the coating and comprising a Mohs hardness greater than a hardness of metal surfaces of first and second parts; and an inorganic matrix, wherein the coating covers at least one of the first metal surface and the third metal surface, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel hub assembly of Shibat and the teaching of the coating comprising: a plurality of hard particles uniformly dispersed in the coating and comprising a Mohs hardness greater than a hardness of surfaces of first and second parts; and an inorganic matrix, wherein the coating covers at least one of the first metal surface and the third metal surface of Dorfler to modify the first and third metal surfaces, and either the second or fourth metal surfaces such that the connecting surfaces each have coating with inorganic metallic hard particles having a hardness greater than each of: the second metal surface
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the wheel hub assembly of the combination of Shibat and Dorfler, to apply the UV light curable coating of Shibata (described in paragraph 12 of this document), to the first and third and one of second or fourth surfaces, with the motivation to protect the surfaces form corrosion (Shibata, Para 8-19, Fig 1-10), having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success..
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 1, wherein the hard particles comprise irregularly shaped abrasive particles with a Mohs hardness of at least 9 (as just described in paragraph 12 of this document).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 2, wherein one of the organic matrix or the inorganic matrix further comprises one of a UV light-cured varnish and an IR light-cured varnish (Specifically the inorganic matrix, with UV light cured varnish (as described in paragraph 12 of this document).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub of claim 1, wherein the coating covers at least one of the second metal surface
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 1, wherein the coating covering at least one of the first metal surface and the third metal surface comprises the inorganic matrix, the inorganic matrix comprises one of a metal and a metal alloy, (a metal alloy Corundum, as described in paragraph 12 of this document), and the hard particles are dispersed in the coating before the coating is applied to at least one of the first metal surface and third metal surface (method limit in product claim, not limiting: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113) method limits in apparatus claim, not limiting (MPEP 2113).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 7, wherein the hard particles comprise dimensions between 15 pm and 60 pm, and the hard particles comprise one of corundum, alumina, and silicon carbide.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and further in view of Dorfler, and further in view of US-20210017376-A1 to Grismala (“Grismala”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein one of the organic matrix or the inorganic matrix further comprises an anaerobic sealant paste, wherein the hard particles are dispersed in the coating before the coating is applied to at least one of the first metal surface and third metal surface (method limit in product claim, not limiting: “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production., MPEP 2113) method limits in apparatus claim, not limiting (MPEP 2113),.
Grismala discloses a coating wherein one of the organic matrix or the inorganic matrix further comprises an anaerobic sealant paste (Para 24.)
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel hub assembly and the anaerobic sealant paste, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel hub assembly of the combination of Shibata and Dorfler and the teaching of the anaerobic sealant paste of Grismala, to modify the wheel hub assembly such that it includes a anaerobic sealant paste (like Grismala) with the motivation to seal the connection between the first metal surface and third metal surface to ensure the connection has a thermally stable, durable seal preventing dirt and debris from entering therein between, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata and further in view of Dorfler, and further in view of WO-2010079181-A1 to Reusmann (“Reusmann”)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Shibat and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 5, wherein the coating comprises a thickness of between 20 pm and 100 pm (ad described in but does not disclose wherein the coating comprises the organic matrix, the coating comprises a thickness of between 20 pm and 100 pm, the organic matrix comprises at least one of one or more polyurethane-based polymers, one or more epoxy-based polymers, and one or more acrylic-based copolymers, and the hard particles comprise 10% and 50% of a total weight of the coating.
Reusmann (FOR “O”) discloses a coating comprises the organic matrix (FOR “O Page 5, last paragraph beginning “The metal particles”) wherein, the organic matrix comprises at least one of one or more polyurethane-based polymers, one or more epoxy-based polymers (Epikote 1007 epoxy resin, Page 6, second component of Example 2), and one or more acrylic-based copolymers (FOR “O Page 5, para 3 beginning “As a binder including”, “epoxy resins” “and Polyurethanes”) , and the hard particles comprise 10% and 50% (FOR “O”, Page 7 Para 5 beginning “Base composition…”, Aluminum oxide 16.30% by weight) of a total weight of the coating.
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel hub assembly and the organic matrix wherein, the organic matrix comprises at least one of one or more polyurethane-based polymers, one or more epoxy-based polymers, and one or more acrylic-based, and the hard particles comprise 10% and 50% of a total weight of the coating in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel hub assembly of the combination of Shibat and Dorfler and the teaching of the organic matrix wherein, the organic matrix comprises at least one of one or more polyurethane-based polymers, one or more epoxy-based polymers, and one or more acrylic-based, and the hard particles comprise 10% and 50% of a total weight of the coating of Reusmann, to modify the coating of the wheel hub assembly of the combination of Shibat and Dorfler, such that it includes and the organic matrix wherein, the organic matrix comprises at least one of one or more polyurethane-based polymers, one or more epoxy-based polymers, and one or more acrylic-based, with the motivation to have a organic binder to ensure the particles are properly bound, and the hard particles comprise 10% and 50% of a total weight of the coating (like Reusmann), with the motivation to ensure an adequate percent of particles for good coverage and where the coating is applied having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Shibata, Dorfler and Reusmann discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 6, wherein the hard particles comprise dimensions between 15 µm and 60 µm (as described in paragraph 12, the coating has a range of particle sizes 25 µm to 250 µm has overlapping sizes 25 µm to 60 µm, thus in a range of 15 µm and 60 µm), and the hard particles comprise one of corundum, alumina, and silicon carbide (specifically corundum as described in paragraph 12 of this document).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Shibata and Dorfler discloses the wheel hub assembly of claim 7, wherein the hard particles comprise between 10% and 50% of a total weight of the coating, but does not disclose wherein the matrix comprises a zinc layer comprising a thickness of between 20 µm to 100 µm.
Reusmann discloses wherein the matrix comprises a zinc layer comprising a thickness of between 20 µm to 100 µm (zinc galvanized layer, known in the art to have a thickness in the range of 20 µm to 100 µm , FOR “O”, Page 6 Para 4).
The difference between the disclosure in the claimed invention and the prior art, is that the prior art does not disclose the wheel hub assembly and a zinc layer comprising a thickness of between 20 µm to 100 µm, in a single combined apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the wheel hub assembly of the combination of Shibata and Dorfler and the teaching of the zinc layer comprising a thickness of between 20 µm to 100 µm, and to modify the coating of the wheel hub assembly, such that it includes a zinc layer comprising a thickness of between 20 µm to 100 µm (like Reusmann), with the motivation ensure the hub assembly has adequate corrosion protection, having an expectation of equivalent function and a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Horling (DE 102007057906), Baratti (US-9321308-B2), Darke (CN-106895071-A), and Von Schleinitz (EP-264913-B1) disclose hub assemblies and or coatings thereon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVA LYNN COMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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, Joe Morano can be reached at 571-272-6684. 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.
/EVA L COMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615