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
1. The drawings are objected to because:
· The reference numerals in all figures are handwritten and not clearly legible, making it unclear which components are being identified. For example, it is unclear whether a 1, 7, or ^ is being used; and a 0 or θ is being used.
· The reference numeral, 116 “Deformation space” in Fig. 2, is only present in a list of reference signs, and not actually described in the “Detailed description of the preferred embodiments” portion of the specification, as required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
· Claims 2, 17, and 20 (wherein the deformation space extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction)
· Claims 14 and 19 (the hub cap “is reversibly fixed” to the wheel hub)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
· In para [0030], “sealing ring 102” should read “sealing ring 101”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
· The limitation “wherein the deformation space extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction” in Claims 2, 17, and 20 is not enabled by the specification. Furthermore, this limitation is not shown in the drawings.
· The limitation that the hub cap “is reversibly fixed” to the wheel hub in Claims 14 and 19 is not enabled by the specification (i.e. not discussed). Furthermore, this limitation is not shown in the drawings.
5. 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 2, 7, 12, 14, 17, and 19-20 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.
Claims 2, 17, and 20 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The limitation that the deformation space “extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction” is indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed as this limitation is generally narrative.
Claims 7 and 12 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the term “is configured”. Namely, no physical structure is present in these claims to define this term.
Claims 14 and 19 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is being claimed by the limitation that the hub cap is “reversibly fixed” to the wheel hub. This limitation is neither shown in the drawings, nor described in the specification.
Claims 14 and 19 are indefinite due to the fact that it is unclear what is actually being claimed by the terms “configured to abut” and “via”. Namely, no physical structure is present in these claims to define these terms. Additionally, it is unclear how the phrase “configured to abut” is any different that the term “abuts”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartmann (AT14083U1).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses a sealing ring (1 “seal”) comprising: a retaining region (8 “lip base region” in Fig. 3) extending circumferentially about an axial direction (A) (axial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Figs. 1-4); and a primary sealing lip (20 “sealing lip wing” in Fig. 3; Abstract) having an extension (Fig. 5) in a positive radial direction (Positive radial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Fig. 3), wherein the radial direction extends radially and perpendicularly away from the axial direction (It is inherent, as the recited radial direction merely defines a conventional coordinate relationship), and wherein the primary sealing lip (20) has a pressure side (21 “pressure surface”) in the direction of the axial direction (Figs. 3-4; Page 6, line 5, “The pressure surface 21 is aligned in the working position so that it has an axial extension” from corrected translation of Para [0044], line 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 1, wherein a deformation space (11 “free space” in Fig. 5) is located between the primary sealing lip (20) and the retaining region (8), and wherein the deformation space (11) extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction (not shown but implicit from Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 3, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 2, wherein the primary sealing lip (20) extends in the axial direction and in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 3, wherein the sealing ring (1) has grooves (6 “sealing surface”) extending in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring according to claim 4, wherein the grooves (6) extend from the retaining region (Fig. 5) into the primary sealing lip (20) and/or wherein the grooves (6) have a rounded groove (6) base in a radial plane (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 4, wherein the grooves (6) are arranged on the pressure side (21 in Fig. 4) of the primary sealing lip (20).
Regarding claim 7, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 6, wherein the primary sealing lip (20) is configured such that when pressure is applied to the pressure side (21 in Fig. 4) the primary sealing lip (20) is deformed toward the retaining region (8; Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 8, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 1, wherein the primary sealing lip (20) extends in the axial direction and in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 1, wherein the sealing ring (1) has grooves (6) extending in the radial direction (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 9, wherein the grooves (6) extend from the retaining region (8) into the primary sealing lip (20) and/or wherein the grooves (6) have a rounded groove (6) base in a radial plane (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 9, wherein the grooves (6) are arranged on the pressure side (21 in Fig. 4) of the primary sealing lip (20).
Regarding claim 12, Hartmann discloses the sealing ring (1) according to claim 1, wherein the primary sealing lip (20) is configured such that when pressure is applied to the pressure side (21 in Fig. 4), the primary sealing lip (20) is deformed toward the retaining region (8; Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann in view of Wasserfuhr et al (US12109847B2).
Regarding claim 13, Hartmann fails to disclose a hub cap system for attachment to a wheel hub of a commercial vehicle, comprising: the sealing ring according to claim 1; and a hub cap having a compressed air feed-through arrangement, that extends in the axial direction.
Wasserfuhr et al, however, teaches a hub cap (2 “hub covering” in Fig. 1) system for attachment to a wheel hub (1 “wheel hub” in Fig. 1) of a commercial vehicle (Abstract), comprising: the sealing ring (19 “sealing ring” in Fig. 1) according to claim 1; and a hub cap (2) having a compressed air feed-through arrangement (3 “rotary connection”; Fig. 1; Col. 1, line 44-60), that extends in the axial direction (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, and with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the hub cap system of Wasserfuhr et al by substituting its sealing ring for the sealing ring, such as taught by Hartmann, with the motivation to improve sealing between the hub cap and the wheel hub, while accommodating manufacturing tolerances and allowing elastic deformation of the sealing lip to enable pressure compensation under over pressure condition.
Regarding claim 14, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses the wheel hub system (Wasserfuhr et al: Fig. 1) comprising the hub cap system (Wasserfuhr et al: Fig. 1) according to claim 13 and a wheel hub (Wasserfuhr et al: 1), wherein the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) abuts or is configured to abut the wheel hub (Wasserfuhr et al: 1) and/or wherein the hub cap is reversibly fixed to the wheel hub via a click lock.
Regarding claim 15, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses a commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract), comprising the sealing ring (Hartmann: 20) according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses a commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract), comprising: a sealing ring (Hartmann: 20), comprising: a retaining region (Hartmann: 8) extending circumferentially about an axial direction (Hartmann: axial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Figs. 1-4); and a primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) having an extension (Hartmann: Fig. 5) in a radial direction (Hartmann: radial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Fig. 3), wherein the radial direction extends radially and perpendicularly away from the axial direction (Hartmann: It is inherent, as the recited radial direction merely defines a conventional coordinate relationship), and wherein the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) has a pressure side (Hartmann: 21) in the direction of the axial direction (Hartmann: Figs. 3-4; Page 6, line 5, “The pressure surface 21 is aligned in the working position so that it has an axial extension” from corrected translation of Para [0044], line 1-2); and a hub cap (Wasserfuhr et al: 2) having a compressed air feed-through arrangement (Wasserfuhr et al: 3; Fig. 1; Col. 1, line 44-60) that extends in the axial direction (Wasserfuhr et al: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses the commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract) according to claim 16, wherein a deformation space (Hartmann: 11) is located between the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) and the retaining region (Hartmann: 8), and wherein the deformation space (Hartmann: 11) extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction (Hartmann: not shown but implicit from Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses the commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract) of claim 17, wherein the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) extends in the axial direction and in the radial direction (Hartmann: Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses a commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract), comprising: a sealing ring (Hartmann: 20) comprising: a retaining region (Hartmann: 8) extending circumferentially about an axial direction (Hartmann: axial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Figs. 1-4); and a primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) having an extension (Hartman: Fig. 5) in a radial direction (Hartmann: radial direction is implicit from the geometry of the illustrated components in Fig. 3), wherein the radial direction extends radially and perpendicularly away from the axial direction (It is inherent, as the recited radial direction merely defines a conventional coordinate relationship.), and wherein the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) has a pressure side (Hartmann: 21) in the direction of the axial direction (Hartmann: Figs. 3-4; Page 6, line 5, “The pressure surface 21 is aligned in the working position so that it has an axial extension” from corrected translation of Para [0044], line 1-2); and a hub cap system (Wasserfuhr et al: Fig. 1), comprising: a hub cap (Wasserfuhr et al: 2) having a compressed air feed-through arrangement (Wasserfuhr et al: 3; Fig. 1; Col. 1, line 44-60) that extends in the axial direction (Wasserfuhr et al: Fig. 1); and a wheel hub (Wasserfuhr et al: 1), wherein the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) abuts or is configured to abut the wheel hub (Wasserfuhr et al: 1) and/or wherein the hub cap is reversibly fixed to the wheel hub via a click lock.
Regarding claim 20, Hartmann, as modified by Wasserfuhr et al, discloses the commercial vehicle (Wasserfuhr et al: Abstract) according to claim 16, wherein a deformation space (Hartmann: 11) is located between the primary sealing lip (Hartmann: 20) and the retaining region (Hartmann: 8), and wherein the deformation space (Hartmann: 11) extends rotationally symmetrically, circumferentially about the axial direction (Hartmann: not shown but implicit from Figs. 1-4).
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEKWON CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-5805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joe) Morano, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/TAEKWON CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/JASON R BELLINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615