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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Response re: 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 07 Nov 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 and 31 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the amended claims 15 and 31. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seibert, Kaiser, Dharaiya, Weigand, and Lesesky,
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.
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.
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 15-16 and 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert et al., US 20200161898 A1 (herein, Seibert), in view of Dharaiya et al., US 20180281513 A1 (herein, Dha), Weigand US 20170036481 A1 (herein, Weigand), and in further view of Kaiser, et al., US 20150343841 A1 (herein, Kaiser).
Regarding Claims 15 and 31, Seibert discloses, a commercial vehicle wheel end ([0003] –“ A wheel end may include a wheel hub assembly mounted on a spindle of a vehicle axle to provide a rotatable connection point for mounting a wheel and tire assembly to the vehicle. Wheel hub assemblies for commercial vehicles such as heavy-duty trucks …”) , comprising:
wherein the wheel hub is held rotatably about an axle of rotation (¶[0043] – “Once the wheel hub 302 is connected to the drive axle shaft, rotation of the drive axle shaft causes rotation of the wheel hub 302 around the spindle.”) by the wheel bearing arrangement;
wherein the wheel hub cap is fixed to the wheel hub (FIG. 1 illustrates cap fixed to hub);
Seibert discloses, a wheel bearing arrangement (FIG. 1, wheel hub assembly 10 ), a wheel hub (FIG. 1, wheel hub 18), a wheel hub cap (¶[0026] – “hub cap”)
but does not disclose, an NFC tag;
and an NFC tag mounted on the wheel hub cap;
However, Dha teaches,
and an NFC tag mounted on the wheel hub cap (FIG. 3, #s 254 – “main circuit board” and #258 – batteries);
wherein the NFC tag is mounted on the wheel hub cap (FIG. 3 illustrates #s 254 and 258, the NFC Tag, mounted on the wheel hub 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the commercial vehicle wheel end as disclosed by Seibert to have a transceiver mounted on a wheel hubcap as taught by Dha. Doing so, improves the data collection pertaining to the wheel and tire and thus permits accurate determination of road distance travel so as to gauge tear wear.
Modified Seibert teaches the wheel hub cap and wheel hub but does not disclose,
wherein a seal is arranged between the wheel hub cap and the wheel hub.
However, Weigand teaches,
wherein a seal is arranged between the wheel hub cap and the wheel hub (FIG. 3 and ¶[0021] – “…To increase the sealing effect of the wheel cover 4, a seal element 6 is preferably arranged between the wheel cover 4 and the hub 2.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the commercial vehicle wheel end as disclosed by modified Seibert to include a seal arranged between the wheel hub cap and wheel hub as taught by Weigand. Doing so, provides an efficient method to seal the wheel hub cap and hub and thus prevent dirt or debris from entering the wheel hub and thus prolong the operational life of the same.
Modified Seibert teaches the wheel hub cap but does not disclose,
wherein the wheel hub cap comprises plastic configured to reduce interference in data transmission from the NFC tag and increasing a signal-to-noise ratio.
However, Kaiser teaches,
wherein the hub cap comprises plastic configured to reduce interference in data transmission from the NFC tag and increasing a signal-to-noise ratio (¶[0011] – “…To this end, the cover must absorb as little magnetic energy as possible or no magnetic energy and therefore must not be magnetizable. Ideally, the cover is made from a plastic or a non-magnetizable metal.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the commercial vehicle wheel end as disclosed by modified Seibert to a hub cap made of plastic as taught by Kaiser. Doing so, provides cost savings of producing the hub cap in plastic of metal and does not interfere with the magnetic fields.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the NFC tag is mounted via an adhesive bond (¶[0024] – “…or adhesive…”), and/or is irreversibly mounted (¶[0024] – “…using welds, fasteners…””).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the wheel end has the axle end (FIG. 1 illustrate the axle end) of the axle, wherein the axle end is spaced at least 2 cm from the NFC tag and/or wherein the NFC tag is mounted directly or indirectly on the axle end (Mac, FIG. 1 illustrates the NFC tag 76 mounted on the axle end).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Seibert teaches the axle end but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the axle end is spaced at least 4 cm from the NFC tag.
However, modified Seibert teaches, wherein the axle end is spaced at least 4 cm from the NFC tag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the commercial wheel end in which the axle end is spaced at least 4 cm from the NFC tag, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, pages 5-6, ¶[0011], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Seibert teaches the axle end but does not explicitly disclose, wherein the axle end is spaced at least 6 cm from the NFC tag.
However, Seibert teaches, wherein the axle end is spaced at least 4 cm from the NFC tag.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the commercial wheel end in which the axle end is spaced at least 6 cm from the NFC tag, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, pages 5-6, ¶[0011], applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the NFC tag lies on the axle of rotation or is intersected by the axle of rotation Claim 4 - the wheel hub and rotate with rotation of the wheel hub around the spindle.).
Regarding Claim 23, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the NFC tag is mounted on the wheel hub cap on a side facing the axle and/or on an inner side of the hub cap (FIG. 1 illustrates the axel is on the inner side of the hub cap).
Regarding Claim 24, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein a seal is arranged between the wheel hub cap and the wheel hub (FIG. 1, #102 – seal).
Regarding Claim 25, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the hub has through openings (FIG. 1 illustrates through openings), and wherein the NFC tag is mounted in or in close proximity to a through opening (FIG. 1 illustrates that the hub has a through opening and the NFC tag 76 is mounted the through opening).
Regarding Claims 26 and 32, modified Seibert further teaches, the commercial vehicle (¶[0003] – “commercial vehicles”) comprising the wheel end according to claim 15.
Regarding Claims 27 and 33, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the commercial vehicle comprises a trailer (¶[0003] – “…a trailer wheel…”).
Regarding Claims 28 and 34, modified Seibert further teaches, wherein the commercial vehicle comprises a semi-trailer (¶[0003] – “…heavy-duty truck…”).
Regarding Claims 29 and 35, modified Seibert further teaches, an identification system (Claim 1 “…communication circuitry operably coupled to the wheel end device and configured to wirelessly communicate wheel end device information…”) for identifying a wheel end component , comprising: the commercial vehicle wheel end according to claim 15; and
an information retrieval unit that includes a smartphone (¶[0034] – “…wheel end monitoring devices may include, for example, a user device 221 such as a smartphone, a tablet computer …”);
wherein the NFC tag is configured to transmit information concerning the wheel end or a component of the wheel end to the information retrieval unit (¶[0006] – “…the antenna of the communication circuitry outside of the wheel hub permits wireless communications to be transmitted from the wheel end with reduced interference from the wheel hub.…”).
Regarding Claims 30 and 36, modified Seibert further teaches, an information system (FIG. 5 and ¶[0035] – “… radio frequency transmitter that transmits encoded signals containing information regarding measurements from the sensor 200…), comprising:
the identification system according to claim 29; and
a central unit that includes a server (FIG. 5 and ¶[0037] – “…As an example, the communication circuitry 214 may communicate indirectly with the user device 221 via the server computer 223 and the network 222. …”);
wherein the information retrieval unit is configured to transmit the information received from the NFC tag or parts or all of the information received from the NFC tag to the central unit (¶[0055]), and/or wherein the central unit is configured to access an information memory (¶[0032] – memory 206) including a database of the central unit (FIG. 5) on the basis of the information received from the information retrieval unit and to transmit data from the information memory to the information retrieval unit as a function of the information received from the information retrieval unit (FIG. 5 and ¶[0035] –
“As another example, the communication circuitry 214 may include a short-range Bluetooth transceiver that communicates with a Bluetooth transceiver of the vehicle.”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert et al., US 20200161898 A1 (herein, Seibert), Dha, Weigand, and in further view of Kaiser, et al., US 20150343841 A1 (herein, Kaiser) and in further view of Lesesky et. al., US 20170206446 A1 (herein, Lesesky)
Regarding Claim 17, modified Seibert discloses and NFC tag but does not disclose, wherein the NFC tag comprises a passive tag.
However, Lesesky teaches, wherein the NFC tag comprises a passive tag (Lesesky, ¶[0111] – “…passive transponder (e.g., RFID or NFC tag)…)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the commercial vehicle wheel end as disclosed by modified Seibert to include a passive tag as taught by Lesesky. Doing so, provides the capability of receiving transmissions and as such, these transmissions can provide the operator with real-time information.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Seibert discloses the NFC tag but does not disclose, wherein the NFC tag comprises a low frequency tag or a high frequency tag.
However, Lesesky teaches, wherein the NFC tag comprises a low frequency tag or a high frequency tag (Lesesky, ¶[0164] – “…13 MHz (or 125 KHz) RFID transceiver 149 is applicable for reading and writing to NFC and other radio frequency tags…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the commercial vehicle wheel end as disclosed by modified Seibert to include a high/low frequency tag as taught by Lesesky. Doing so, provides the capability of receiving transmissions at an increase band width and thus enhance the capability of the wheel end.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited but not utilized in the Office Action pertain to a commercial vehicle wheel end.
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 LUIS G DEL VALLE whose telephone number is (303)297-4313. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 0730 - 1630 MST. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/LUIS G DEL VALLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
