Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1, line last recites the limitation, “with each other in the other.” It’s meaning is unknown.
Claim 2, line last recites the limitation, “the outer diameter portion and the inner diameter portion, the outer diameter portion and the inner diameter portion.” It’s meaning is unknown.
Regarding claims 3 & 4, the phrase "assuming that" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Each of claims 3 & 4 recites limitations, 0%, 100%, 50% and 90%, but it is not clear what element or feature these percentages are percentages of.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beier, US 4,893,960. At Fig. 1, Beier shows a wheel bearing device comprising:
a wheel bearing including an inner member (1. 12) having double row inner raceway surfaces and a flange portion (5) for being attached to a wheel, an outer member (2) having double row outer raceway surfaces, and a plurality of rolling elements (10, 11) disposed between the inner raceway surfaces and the outer raceway surfaces facing each other; and
a constant velocity universal joint having an outer joint member (4),
the outer joint member and the inner member being coupled so as to be able to transmit torque by meshing face splines (152, 151) respectively provided in the outer joint member and the inner member and applying a tightening force (see also “tensioned” at col. 3, line 52) in an axial direction between both the face splines.
Examiner notes that the remaining limitations are product-by-process limitations to which applicant is reminded that “[t]he patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as...a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Hirano and Funahashi discloses a wheel bearing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Greg Binda whose telephone number is (571)272-7077. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 et.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/Greg Binda/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights