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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (CN 217598237 U).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a hub assembly (comprised of 10, 20 and 30 as shown in Fig. 4) for a human powered vehicle (“bicycle” per the Abstract), the hub assembly comprising: a hub axle 22 having a center axis defining an axial direction (evident from Fig. 4); a hub shell 20 rotatably mounted on the hub axle to rotate about the center axis (evident from Figs. 4 and 5), the hub shell including at least one first tooth (unlabeled teeth of 20 best shown in Fig. 4); a sprocket support body 30 rotatably mounted on the hub axle to rotate about the center axis (evident from Fig. 5); and a seal member 10 including: a fixed portion (11 and/or 12 as shown in Fig. 3) configured to be mounted to one of the hub shell and the sprocket support body (Figs. 5-7); a sealing portion 15 extending in a first direction so as to slide relative to the sprocket support body (evident from Figs. 5-7); and a branching portion 14 extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Figs. 3 and 5-7) so that a grease keeping space 13 is formed between the sealing portion and the branching portion (Figs. 3 and 5-7; second and third paragraphs on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), the sealing portion having a first length (length of 15 shown in Fig. 3) defined from the fixed portion in the first direction in a detached state where the seal member is detached from the one of the hub shell and the speocket support body (Fig. 3), the branching portion having a second length (length of 14 shown in Fig. 3) defined from the fixed portion in the second direction in the detached state (Fig. 3), and the first length being longer than the second length (clearly shown in Fig. 3).
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.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 2020/0398611 A1) in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima discloses a hub assembly 10 for a human powered vehicle (“bicycle” per the Abstract), the hub assembly comprising: a hub axle 12 having a center axis A1 defining an axial direction (Fig. 2); a hub shell 14 rotatably mounted on the hub axle to rotate about the center axis (Fig. 2; paragraph [0065]), the hub shell including at least one first tooth 34; a sprocket support body 16 rotatably mounted on the hub axle to rotate about the center axis (Fig. 2; paragraph [0065]); and a seal member (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) including: a fixed portion (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) configured to be mounted to one of the hub shell and the sprocket support body (Fig. 7); and a sealing portion (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided below) extending in a first direction so as to slide relative to the sprocket support body (Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakajima fails to disclose the seal member having a branching portion extending in a second direction different from the first direction so that a grease keeping space is formed between the sealing portion and the branching portion.
Chen, however, as noted above, teaches a hub assembly that includes a seal member 10 including: a fixed portion (11 and/or 12 as shown in Fig. 3) configured to be mounted to one of the hub shell and the sprocket support body (Figs. 5-7); a sealing portion 15 extending in a first direction so as to slide relative to the sprocket support body (evident from Figs. 5-7); and a branching portion 14 extending in a second direction different from the first direction (Figs. 3 and 5-7) so that a grease keeping space 13 is formed between the sealing portion and the branching portion (Figs. 3 and 5-7; second and third paragraphs on page 4 of the English-language machine translation), the sealing portion having a first length (length of 15 shown in Fig. 3) defined from the fixed portion in the first direction in a detached state where the seal member is detached from the one of the hub shell and the speocket support body (Fig. 3), the branching portion having a second length (length of 14 shown in Fig. 3) defined from the fixed portion in the second direction in the detached state (Fig. 3), and the first length being longer than the second length (clearly shown in Fig. 3).
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 hub assembly of Nakajima by substituting its seal member for the claimed seal member, such as taught by Chen, as a well-known alternative seal member that would have a reasonable expectation of success in providing predictable results for preventing the ingress of water, dirt and debris in the hub assembly while helping ensure the clutch structure is properly lubricated for smooth operation, thus improving the durability of the hub assembly.
Regarding claim 18, Nakajima further discloses a dust cover (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided above) configured to be mounted to the sprocket support body (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 19, Nakajima further discloses a labyrinth seal (labeled in reproduced and annotated Fig. 7 provided above) is formed between the seal member and the dust cover (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Nakajima further discloses the sprocket support body includes a first spline 38, and the hub assembly further comprises: a first ratchet member 26 including: at least one first ratchet tooth 44; and a second spline 46 configured to engage with the first spline (paragraph [0084]); a second ratchet member 28 including: at least one second ratchet tooth 56 configured to engage with the at least one first ratchet tooth (paragraph [0089]); and at least one second tooth 36 configured to engage with the at least one first tooth (paragraph [0080]); and a biasing member 60 provided between the hub shell and the first ratchet member in the axial direction to bias the first ratchet member toward the second ratchet member in the axial direction (paragraph [0091]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Chen (i.e., “the length of the sealing portion (14) is shorter than the length of the branching portion (15)”) with respect to independent claim 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the interpretation of any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, as noted above, the sealing portion of Chen is now considered to be the “leakage-proof ring sheet” 15 while the branching portion of Chen is now considered to be the “stopping ring part” 14. The length of the sealing portion 15 is longer than the length of the branching portion 14 as shown in Fig. 3 and as acknowledged by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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