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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on May 20, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the wheel hub assembly can only be made by the method of claim 1. Curious, Applicant states that claim 11 “merely recites additional structural limitations that are optionally achieved” via the method. In addition, and in conclusory fashion, Applicant argues that the process cannot make a materially different product because the alleged assembly of claim 11 (the one with apparently optional features) has all novel features. This is not found persuasive. Applicant fails to set forth why the identified different processes would not arrive at the hub assembly as claimed. Likewise, the conclusory argument does not address why the process can only be used to make the hub assembly.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 11 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: rolling elements in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 are 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 recites “a rolling bearing including a radially outer ring having a first flange on a radially outer side of the outer ring and a radially inner hub having a second flange on a radially outer side of the hub, the second flange facing the first flange, and a plurality of rolling elements interposed between the outer ring and the hub such that the outer ring and the hub are relatively rotatable” in Lines 3-7. It is unclear what features are included in the rolling bearing. Namely, it is unclear whether the plurality of rolling bearing is part of the rolling bearing. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “rotating the hub around the outer ring” in Line 8. It is unclear how the radially inner hub is considered to rotate around the outer ring. It further brings into question as to what feature the hub relates to in order to be considered inner. The same applies to the outer ring. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “configured to receive a brake disc of a vehicle during use of the wheel hub assembly” in Lines 10-11. The metes and bounds of the “use” are not clearly delineated. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the front face of the second flange.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “rpm.” Yet, it is unclear what rpm stands for in this context. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “a second spindle,” but there isn’t recitation to a first spindle. As such, it is unclear whether there is a first spindle or not. The claim then refers to a first spindle but there is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if the first spindle is meant to refer back to the machine spindle previously recited or not. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loustanau et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0066185 A1), or in the alternative, over Loustanau et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0066185 A1) in view of Cucchi (US Patent No. 5,649,462) or Kawagoe et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0198429 A1).
(Claim 1) Loustanau et al. (“Loustanau”) discloses a method for machining a wheel hub assembly for a vehicle (Figs. 2-5). The method includes the step of providing a wheel hub assembly (Figs. 2-5) with a rolling bearing (11, 13, 12a, 12b) including a radially outer ring (13) having a first flange (13a) on a radially outer side of the outer ring and a radially inner hub (11) having a second flange (11b) on a radially outer side of the hub, the second flange facing the first flange (Figs. 2-5), and a plurality of rolling elements (12a, 12b) interposed between the outer ring and the hub such that the outer ring and the hub are relatively rotatable (Figs. 2-5). The method further includes rotating (via 122) the hub, as best understood, around the outer ring and while simultaneously machining a front surface of the second flange with a tool (23, 23a), the front surface facing away from the first flange, so as to provide a machined surface configured to receive a brake disc of a vehicle during use of the wheel hub assembly (Figs. 2-5). The machined surface of the second flange is oriented perpendicular to a rotation axis of the wheel hub assembly (Figs. 2-5). The method results in the machined surface of the second flange is also substantially parallel to a front face of the first flange opposite to the front face of the second flange (Figs. 2-5). Loustanau does not explicitly disclose rotating the outer ring simultaneously with, and asynchronously with respect to, the rotation of the hub. Yet, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method disclosed in Loustanau with rotating the outer ring simultaneously with, and asynchronously (i.e. different velocity - speed or direction) with respect to, the rotation of the hub as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions (stationary outer ring, outer ring driven synchronously, and outer ring driven asynchronously) - leading to a predictable result of holding the components under rotation during a cutting method of the hub. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Cucchi discloses rotating an outer ring simultaneously with, and asynchronously with respect to, the rotation of an inner member (Col. 4, Lines 57-64). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method disclosed in Loustanau with relative asynchronous, but simultaneous, rotation of the outer ring and the inner hub as suggested by Cucchi in order to maintain the centering on the rotation axis (Col. 4, Lines 60-62). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including “obvious to try”).
Kawagoe et al. (“Kawagoe”) discloses rotating an opposed spindles simultaneously with, and asynchronously with respect to each other (¶¶ 0017-0020). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method disclosed in Loustanau with relative asynchronous, but simultaneous, rotation of the spindles gripping the outer ring and the inner hub as suggested by Kawagoe in order to eliminate chatter (¶ 0020). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including “obvious to try”).
(Claim 2) In the modified method, the hub is rotated at a first angular velocity and the outer ring is rotated at a second angular velocity simultaneously with the rotation of the hub, the first angular velocity being different than the second angular velocity (Loustanau alone; Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64; Kawagoe ¶¶ 0017-0020).
(Claim 3) In the modified method, the first angular velocity has a direction different from a direction of the second angular velocity such that the hub is rotated in a direction of rotation opposite to a direction of rotation of the outer ring (Loustanau alone; Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64).
(Claim 4) In the modified method, the first angular velocity has a magnitude different than a magnitude of the second angular velocity (Loustanau alone; Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64; Kawagoe ¶¶ 0017-0020).
(Claim 5) In the modified method, the first angular velocity has a first value expressed in rotations per minute and the second angular velocity has a second value expressed in rotations per minute, the second value being different from the first value (Loustanau alone; Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64; Kawagoe ¶¶ 0017-0020).
(Claim 6) In the modified method, the first value of the angular velocity of the hub and the second value of the angular velocity of the outer ring are selected such that the first angular velocity is not an integer multiple of the second angular velocity (Loustanau alone; Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64; Kawagoe ¶¶ 0017-0020).
(Claim 7) The modified Loustanau method does not explicitly include the first angular velocity of rotation (V_FIR) and the second angular velocity of rotation (V_FOR) are selected so as to satisfy the relationship: V_FIR - V_FOR < 2,000 rpm. Yet, the relative velocity is a result-effective variable because it impacts vibration and centering of the components under rotation (Cucchi Col. 4, Lines 57-64; Kawagoe ¶¶ 0017-0020). As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method in Loustanau with the relative velocities within the claimed range in order to optimize vibration reduction and centering. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
(Claim 8) In the modified method, the outer ring (Loustanau 13) is coupled with a machine chuck (Loustanau 120) during the step of rotating the outer ring such that the spindle rotates the outer ring simultaneously with the hub; and during the step of rotating the hub and during the step of rotating the outer ring, the front face of the first flange is arranged perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the wheel hub assembly and to the axis of rotation of the machine spindle coupled with the outer ring (Loustanau Figs. 2-5). Loustanau does not explicitly include the spindle causing the rotation of the outer ring.
Kawagoe discloses opposed spindles, each having a chuck, for driving at different velocities (Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Loustanau with a spindle attached to the chuck that is attached to the outer ring as suggested by Kawagoe as a known configuration for providing opposed driving members. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including: use of known technique to improve similar methods in the same way; and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
(Claim 9) In the modified method, the machine spindle has a reference surface (Loustanau 121) perpendicular to an axis of rotation of the machine spindle and configured to receive in abutment the front face of the first flange of the outer ring (Loustanau Fig. 2).
(Claim 10) In the modified method, the hub is coupled with a second machine spindle (Loustanau 122) during the step of rotating the hub, the second machine spindle being arranged coaxial with the first machine spindle; and the first spindle is provided with a motor (inherent) for rotating the first spindle and the second spindle is provided with another motor (inherent) for rotating the second spindle. If Applicant traverses the presence of motors for providing rotational drive to the respective spindle, examiner takes official notice of the fact that motors driving spindles are well-known in the art. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Loustanau with a respective motor for each spindle in order to provide separate drive force to each.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights