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
Figures 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 has faint lines that make the structure difficult to see. See 37 CFR 1.84(I). PDF filing guidelines can be found at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romanetto et al. (US 11,535,056 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Romanetto et al. discloses a flanged inner ring (20) of a wheel hub unit (10), the flanged inner ring comprising:
a flange (22) extending transverse to a central axis (X) of symmetry and comprising a plurality of fixing holes (23) for attaching a wheel (Column 2 / Lines 41-42); and
a continuous tubular body (51) projecting axially from the flange and having a plurality of polygonal recesses (58; each 58 is recessed from the outer circumferential surface of 51).
Regarding claim 2, Romanetto et al. discloses that each one of the polygonal recesses correspond to a flange surface area (52) between a separate pair of adjacent fixing holes.
Regarding claim 3, Romanetto et al. discloses that the tubular body has an axial end (the end of 51 that directly attaches to 22) integrally formed with the flange and an opposing, free axial end (56), the polygonal recesses being formed at a junction between the tubular body and the flange (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Romanetto et al. discloses that the flange is **[configured to retain a wheel rim to a wheel hub]**.
Regarding claim 6, Romanetto et al. discloses that the wheel hub unit comprises an outer ring (30).
Regarding claim 7, Romanetto et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are provided to reduce weight of the wheel hub unit (Column 3 / Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 8, Romanetto et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are configured to improve water drainage from the wheel hub unit (Column 3 / Lines 39-46).
Regarding claim 9, Romanetto et al. discloses a wheel hub unit (10) comprising:
a flanged inner ring (20) having a central axis (X) and including a flange (22) extending transverse to the central axis, the flange having a plurality of fixing holes (23) for attaching a wheel (Column 2 / Lines 41-42) and being spaced circumferentially about the central axis, and
a continuous tubular body (51) projecting axially from the flange and having a plurality of polygonal recesses (58; each 58 is recessed from the outer circumferential surface of 51) spaced circumferentially about the central axis.
Regarding claim 10, Romanetto et al. discloses that each one of the polygonal recesses is formed in a flange surface area (52) located circumferentially between a separate pair of adjacent fixing holes.
Regarding claim 11, Romanetto et al. discloses that the tubular body has an axial end (the end of 51 that directly attaches to 22) integrally formed with the flange and an opposing, free axial end (56), the polygonal recesses being formed at a junction between the tubular body and the flange (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Romanetto et al. discloses that the flange is **[configured to retain a wheel rim to a wheel hub]**.
Regarding claim 14, Romanetto et al. discloses that the wheel hub unit further comprises an outer ring (30) disposed about the flanged inner ring.
Regarding claim 15, Romanetto et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are provided to reduce weight of the wheel hub unit (Column 3 / Lines 47-56).
Regarding claim 16, Romanetto et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are configured to improve water drainage from the wheel hub unit (Column 3 / Lines 39-46).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albl et al. (US 11,904,632 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Albl et al. discloses a flanged inner ring of a wheel hub unit (10), the flanged inner ring comprising:
a flange (14) extending transverse to a central axis (20) of symmetry and comprising a plurality of fixing holes (16) for attaching a wheel (a wheel is disclosed in Column 8 / Line 27); and
a continuous tubular body (24) projecting axially from the flange and having a plurality of polygonal recesses (46; each 46 is recessed from the outer circumferential surface of 24).
Regarding claim 2, Albl et al. discloses that each one of the polygonal recesses correspond to a flange surface area (see Figure 1) between a separate pair of adjacent fixing holes.
Regarding claim 3, Albl et al. discloses that the tubular body has an axial end (the end of 24 that directly attaches to 14) integrally formed with the flange and an opposing, free axial end (32), the polygonal recesses being formed at a junction between the tubular body and the flange (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Albl et al. discloses that the flange is **[configured to retain a wheel rim to a wheel hub]**.
Regarding claim 7, Albl et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are**[ provided to reduce weight of the wheel hub unit]**.
Regarding claim 8, Albl et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are **[configured to improve water drainage from the wheel hub unit]**.
Regarding claim 9, Albl et al. discloses a wheel hub unit (10) comprising:
a flanged inner ring (see Figure 1) having a central axis (20) and including a flange (14) extending transverse to the central axis, the flange having a plurality of fixing holes (16) for attaching a wheel (a wheel is disclosed in Column 8 / Line 27) and being spaced circumferentially about the central axis, and
a continuous tubular body (24) projecting axially from the flange and having a plurality of polygonal recesses (46; each 46 is recessed from the outer circumferential surface of 24) spaced circumferentially about the central axis.
Regarding claim 10, Albl et al. discloses that each one of the polygonal recesses is formed in a flange surface area (see Figure 1) located circumferentially between a separate pair of adjacent fixing holes.
Regarding claim 11, Albl et al. discloses that the tubular body has an axial end (the end of 24 that directly attaches to 14) integrally formed with the flange and an opposing, free axial end (32), the polygonal recesses being formed at a junction between the tubular body and the flange (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Albl et al. discloses that the flange is **[configured to retain a wheel rim to a wheel hub]**.
Regarding claim 15, Albl et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are **[provided to reduce weight of the wheel hub unit]**.
Regarding claim 16, Albl et al. discloses that the plurality of polygonal recesses in the flanged inner ring are **[configured to improve water drainage from the wheel hub unit]**.
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romanetto et al. (US 11,535,056 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Romanetto et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the plurality of polygonal recesses are formed in a forging process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of polygonal recesses may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of forming the plurality of polygonal recesses and make the plurality of polygonal recesses in a forging process, the plurality of polygonal recesses may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The 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 or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albl et al. (US 11,904,632 B2).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Albl et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the plurality of polygonal recesses are formed in a forging process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the plurality of polygonal recesses may be made by any known method of manufacture which achieves the desired operational characteristics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of forming the plurality of polygonal recesses and make the plurality of polygonal recesses in a forging process, the plurality of polygonal recesses may be made by any known manufacturing method which is suitable to the desired operational characteristics of the part being made. Further, the patentability of the device does not depend on its method of manufacture.
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The 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 or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Niebling et al. (US 9,676,232 B2) discloses a wheel hub that has a flange with a plurality of holes, a tubular body that projects along an axial centerline of the wheel hub, and the tubular body has a plurality of through openings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM EST.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617