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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 121 and 360.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) in Figs. 2A and 2B not mentioned in the description: 306.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 13 and 20 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” refers to “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” previously set forth in independent claim 1 or if it refers to a distinct runout as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a snap ring” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a snap ring” refers to “a snap ring” previously set forth in independent claim 12 or if it refers to a distinct snap ring as implied by the claim construction.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” refers to “a runout of the rotor mounting surface” previously set forth in independent claim 12 or if it refers to a distinct runout as implied by the claim construction.
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, 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”).
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 a 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 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, 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, 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, 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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Fukushima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NTN Hub Bearings (newly cited non-patent literature; hereinafter “NTN”).
Regarding claims 3-5, Rossenbach, as modified by Fukushima, 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).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Fukushima, 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, 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, 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 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Laps (US 2002/0189100 A1).
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 a 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 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, 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, 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, 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, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Brinker.
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Rossenbach, as modified by Laps, 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, 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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossenbach in view of Laps, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of NTN.
Regarding claims 16-18, 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).
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.
Conclusion
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