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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach et al. (DE 102011000626 B4; hereinafter “Rossenbach”) in view of Fukushima et al. (KR 20030020848 A; hereinafter “Fukushima”) and NTN Hub Bearings (cited non-patent literature; hereinafter “NTN”).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Rossenbach discloses a wheel hub assembly comprising: a wheel hub 10 fastened to a wheel 20 of a vehicle (Abstract), the wheel hub having a rotor mounting surface 15 facing an inboard direction (labeled in Fig. 1; unlabeled in the embodiment of Fig. 8); a disc brake rotor 30 having a mounting surface (outboard facing surface of 33 shown in Figs. 1 and 8) attached to the rotor mounting surface (Figs. 1 and 8), the mounting surface facing an outboard direction (Figs. 1 and 8); and a bearing 4A, 4B mounted inside the wheel hub (Fig. 1), wherein the wheel hub includes a cylindrical portion 11 and a flange 12 formed to extend radially outward from the cylindrical portion and to continuously extend in a circumferential direction (Fig. 1), the flange having a flange surface 22 facing the outboard direction (Fig. 1), and fixation of the bearing to the wheel hub by a snap ring 61 (Fig. 1).
Rossenbach fails to expressly disclose the rotor mounting surface being machined after installation of the bearing inside the wheel hub and fixation of the bearing to the wheel hub by a snap ring such that the runout of the rotor mounting surface is less than or equal to 25 micrometers.
It is noted that the limitation requiring the rotor mounting surface to be “machined after installation of the bearing inside the wheel hub and fixation of the bearing to the wheel hub by a snap ring” is considered to be a method limitation that is not afforded full patentable weight in a product claim (See MPEP 2113).
Fukushima, however, teaches a runout of the rotor mounting surface 5a is less than or equal to 25 micrometers after being machined (note at least the first paragraph on page 12 of the English-language machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach by forming the rotor mounting surface to have a runout that is less than or equal to 25 micrometers, such as taught by Fukushima, with a reasonable expectation of success in improving stability of the wheel hub assembly by minimizing brake judder.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 5, Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima, further fails to expressly disclose an outside diameter of the wheel hub is from 200 mm to 338 mm, and wherein a distance between the flange surface and the rotor mounting surface is from 60 mm to 153.6 mm.
NTN, however, teaches that it is well-known in the art that the wheel hub bearing is sized and dimensioned based upon a number of factors, such as the vehicle specifications upon which the wheel hub is to be used, configuration of area surrounding bearing, materials used to form the wheel hub bearing, desired rigidity and strength based upon expected loads, etc. (note pages 6-12). Further, NTN, in the table on page 19, teaches outer ring rotating type bearing hubs where both the outside diameter Df of the wheel hub and the distance Ba between the flange surface and the axial end surface of the wheel hub can vary (note a number of the listed bearing hubs have a distance Ba within the claimed range) to meet desired design and performance considerations.
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima, so that is has an outside diameter from 200 mm to 338 mm and a distance between the flange surface and the rotor mounting surface to be from 60 mm to 153.6 mm, based upon a number of factors, such as the intended use of the wheel hub, configuration of the area surrounding the wheel hub, materials used to form the wheel hub, and the desired rigidity and strength of the wheel hub based upon expected loads, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the wheel hub is able to adequately support vehicle loads while ensuring smooth wheel rotation during use of the vehicle upon which it is mounted.
Regarding claim 8, Rossenbach further discloses the snap ring mounted inside the wheel hub (Fig. 1),wherein the snap ring fixes the bearing to the wheel hub and the bearing is installed on a spindle 1 (evident from Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima, fails to expressly disclose the type of vehicle to which the wheel hub is fastened.
Nonetheless, to have use the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima, on a heavy-duty truck or an electric heavy-duty truck would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the vehicle’s axle to be connected to the wheel, ensuring smooth wheel rotation while supporting the vehicle loads. It is further noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Fukushima and NTN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinker et al. (US 7,716,833 B2; hereinafter “Brinker”).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima and NTN, fails to expressly disclose the flange surface is machined such that a runout of the flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers.
Brinker, however, teaches a wheel hub 14 having a flange 32 with flange surfaces 62, 64 that are machined such that a runout of each flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers (lines 37-61 of col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima and NTN, by machining the flange surface such that a runout of the flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers, such as taught by Brinker, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring precise alignment and minimize the risk of excessive vibrations and wear.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Fukushima and NTN, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Regan et al. (US 2023/0249496 A1; hereinafter “Regan”).
Regarding claim 9, Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima and NTN, fails to expressly disclose a clamping device mounted inside the wheel hub and configured to fix the bearing.
Regan, however, teaches a wheel hub assembly 102 in which a clamping device 146 is mounted inside the wheel hub 116 and configured to fix the bearing 120 (paragraph [0031]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima and NTN, by including a clamping device mounted inside the wheel hub and configured to fix the bearing, such as taught by Regan, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bearing is fixed in a desired position relative to the wheel hub while also securing the wheel hub assembly to the steering knuckle.
Claims 12, 13, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Laps (US 2002/0189100 A1) and NTN.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Rossenbach discloses a method of producing a wheel hub assembly comprising: assembling a bearing 4A, 4B to a wheel hub 10 comprising a flange 12 having a flange surface 22 facing an outboard direction (Fig. 1), the wheel hub having a rotor mounting surface 15 facing an inboard direction (labeled in Fig. 1; unlabeled in the embodiment of Fig. 8); fixing the bearing to the wheel hub by a snap ring 61 (Fig. 1); and attaching a mounting surface (outboard facing surface of 33 shown in Figs. 1 and 8) of a disc brake rotor 30 into the rotor mounting surface (Figs. 1 and 8), the mounting surface facing the outboard direction (Figs. 1 and 8).
Rossenbach fails to expressly disclose machining the rotor mounting surface such that the runout of the rotor mounting surface is less than or equal to 25 micrometers.
Laps, however, teaches a method of producing a wheel hub assembly A which includes machining the rotor mounting surface 22 (paragraph [0015]) such that a runout of the rotor mounting surface is less than or equal to 25 micrometers (“the machined mounting surface has essentially no runout” per the Abstract; “machined to eliminate runout” per claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach by machining the rotor mounting surface such that a runout of the rotor mounting surface is less than or equal to 25 micrometers, such as taught by Laps, with a reasonable expectation of success in in improving stability of the wheel hub assembly by minimizing brake judder.
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 18, Rossenbach, as modified by Laps, fails to expressly an outside diameter of the wheel hub is from 200 mm to 338 mm, and wherein a distance between the flange surface and the rotor mounting surface is from 60 mm to 153.6 mm.
NTN, however, teaches that it is well-known in the art that the wheel hub bearing is sized and dimensioned based upon a number of factors, such as the vehicle specifications upon which the wheel hub is to be used, configuration of area surrounding bearing, materials used to form the wheel hub bearing, desired rigidity and strength based upon expected loads, etc. (note pages 6-12). Further, NTN, in the table on page 19, teaches outer ring rotating type bearing hubs where both the outside diameter Df of the wheel hub and the distance Ba between the flange surface and the axial end surface of the wheel hub can vary (note a number of the listed bearing hubs have a distance Ba within the claimed range) to meet desired design and performance considerations.
From this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as a matter of routine optimization, to have modified the method of producing the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Laps, so that is has an outside diameter from 200 mm to 338 mm and a distance between the flange surface and the rotor mounting surface to be from 60 mm to 153.6 mm, based upon a number of factors, such as the intended use of the wheel hub, configuration of the area surrounding the wheel hub, materials used to form the wheel hub, and the desired rigidity and strength of the wheel hub based upon expected loads, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the wheel hub is able to adequately support vehicle loads while ensuring smooth wheel rotation during use of the vehicle upon which it is mounted.
Regarding claim 13, although Rossenbach further discloses mounting the snap ring inside the wheel hub between the bearing and the disc brake rotor (Figs. 1 and 8), Rossenbach fails to expressly disclose that such assembly of the wheel hub is prior to machining the rotor mounting surface.
Laps, however, teaches a method of producing a wheel hub assembly A in which the machining of the rotor mounting surface occurs after the hub assembly is assembled so that the disc brake rotor acquires no runout from the hub assembly (Abstract; paragraph [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach by machining the rotor mounting surface after the wheel assembly is assembled, such as taught by Laps, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the disc brake rotor acquires no runout from the hub assembly.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Laps and NTN, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Regan.
Regarding claim 14, although Laps, as noted above, teaches the hub assembly is assembled prior to machining the rotor mounting surface (Abstract; paragraph [0025]) and further teaches mounting the assembled bearing and the wheel hub on a spindle 12 prior to machining the rotor mounting surface (Fig. 2; Abstract; paragraph [0025]), Rossenbach, as modified by Laps and NTN, fails to expressly disclose a clamping device mounted inside the wheel hub and configured to fix the bearing.
Regan, however, teaches a wheel hub assembly 102 in which a clamping device 146 is mounted inside the wheel hub 116 and configured to fix the bearing 120 (paragraph [0031]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Laps and NTN, by including a clamping device mounted inside the wheel hub and configured to fix the bearing, such as taught by Regan, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring the bearing is fixed in a desired position relative to the wheel hub while also securing the wheel hub assembly to the steering knuckle.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Laps and NTN, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brinker.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Rossenbach, as modified by Laps and NTN, fails to expressly disclose the flange surface is machined such that a runout of the flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers.
Brinker, however, teaches a wheel hub 14 having a flange 32 with flange surfaces 62, 64 that are machined such that a runout of each flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers (lines 37-61 of col. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of producing the wheel hub assembly of Rossenbach, as modified by Laps and NTN, by machining the flange surface such that a runout of the flange surface is less than or equal to 20 micrometers, such as taught by Brinker, with a reasonable expectation of success in ensuring precise alignment and minimize the risk of excessive vibrations and wear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “NTN merely is directed to the design of hub bearings and is silent with respect to design considerations of hubs in which such bearings are utilized”, Applicant is reminded that the term “hub bearings”, as is readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, is the nomenclature commonly used to refer to the wheel hub assembly. This is abundantly clear from NTN which clearly discloses various hub bearings (e.g., GEN 1, GEN 2, GEN 3) as including all of the hub assembly structure (e.g., inner ring, outer ring, hub flange) in which ball or roller type bearings are utilized (note pages 2-21).
In response to Applicant’s argument that “NTN fails to identify either an outside diameter of the wheel hub or a distance between a flange surface and a rotor mounting surface as result effective [variables]”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. NTN, in the table on page 19, expressly teaches outer ring rotating type bearing hubs where both the outside diameter Df of the wheel hub and the distance Ba between the flange surface and the axial end surface of the wheel hub can vary (note a number of the listed bearing hubs have a distance Ba within the claimed range) to meet desired design and performance considerations. Further, beginning on page 6 of NTN, NTN expressly teaches the hub bearing selection is based upon a number of factors (e.g., “vehicle model”, “vehicle specifications”, “configuration of area surrounding bearing”, “allowable space for bearing”, “rigidity/strength”, etc…). In other words, among a number of other factors noted on at least pages 6-12 of NTN, the size and dimensions of the wheel hub is limited by space available in both the axial and radial direction for the wheel hub. Moreover, the size and dimensions of the wheel hub is optimized based upon the vehicle specifications upon which the wheel hub is to be used to provide a desired rigidity and strength based upon the loads expected to be encountered by the wheel hub. For example, a wheel hub that is used in heavy duty applications in which higher loads are expected will be sized accordingly (i.e., larger dimensions) to support such loads (note newly cited Ding et al. (CN 202448660 U; hereinafter “Ding”) which discloses a wheel hub outside diameter ranging between 270 mm to 400 mm for a heavy duty vehicle (paragraph [0015]) while a wheel hub that is used in applications in which lighter loads are expected will be sized accordingly (i.e., smaller dimensions) to support such loads while minimizing weight (note newly cited Guo et al. (CN 205154893 U; hereinafter “Guo”) which discloses a wheel hub outside diameter ranging between 120 mm to 150 mm for an automobile (sixth paragraph on page 2 of the translation).
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 KIP T KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7953. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Samuel (Joe) J 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.
/Kip T Kotter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights