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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
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, 2, 13, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Haas -19.
Regarding claim 1:Haas a pinion bearing unit comprising: a pinion (1) having a cylindrical and radially internal seat, opposite first and second axially outer annular walls (see fig 1), a first fin (f1), and a second fin (f2), the first fin (f1) being arrange on the first axially outer annular wall (see fig 1), the second fin (f2) being arranged on the second axially outer annular wall, the first and second fins (f1, f2) extending axially on opposite sides of the seat; and a bearing unit (2+4+20) housed inside the seat (see fig 1), the bearing unit having a radially outer ring (20) connected to the pinion (1) and a radially inner ring (4): wherein the first and second fins (f1, f2) are configured to be deflected ( the sides of f1 and f2 are bent), during an assembly of the unit, to abut the bearing unit (see fig 1) so that the bearing unit is locked axially inside the seat by the first and second fins (f1, f2).
Regarding claim 2: Haas shows wherein the fins (f1, f2) of the at least one pair of fins abut against outer annular edges of the radially outer ring of the bearing unit (2+4+20).
Regarding claim 13: Haas an assembly method ( the bending methos of the fins is inherent since the fins are already deflected) of a pinion bearing unit comprising: inserting a bearing unit (2+4+20) inside a cylindrical and radially internal seat of a pinion (1) such that a radially outer ring (20) of the bearing unit (2+4+20) is rigidly connected to the pinion (1), the pinion (1) having opposite first and second axially outer annular walls (see fig 1), a first fin (f1), and a second fin (f2), the first fin (f1) being arranged on the first axially outer annular wall (), and the second fin (f2) being arranged on the second axially outer annular wall; and deflecting teeth of the first and second fins (f1, f2) substantially at 90° (see fig 1, f1 and f2 are bent forming 90 degrees) , stopping the teeth at respective abutments made by annular edges of the radially outer ring (20) of the bearing unit (2+4+20).
Regarding claim 17: Haas shows wherein outer ring (20) is engaged with the seat (8).
Regarding claim 18: Haas shows wherein the first and second fins (f1, f2) are integrally formed with the seat.
Regarding claim 19: Haas shows, wherein the first and second fins (f1, f2) are disposed directly opposite one another on axially opposite sides of the bearing unit.
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.
Claim 5, 6, 7, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas [DE 3322907] in view of Yoneda [WO 2023/079813].
Regarding claim 5: Yoneda shows wherein the pinion has a first set of eight fins arranged on the first axially outer annular wall and a second set of eight fins (34, there are at least 10 fins shown in fig 7) arranged on the second axially outer annular wall, the first set of eight fins (34) including the first fin, the second set of eight fins including the second fin, the first set of eight fins and the second set of eight fins extending axially on opposite sides of the seat, the first set of eight fins and the second set of eight fins (34) being configured to be deflected, during the assembly of the unit, to abut the bearing unit so that the bearing unit is locked axially inside the seat by the first and second sets of eight fins (34).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the fins from 8 fins instead of one integral annular fin to reduce manufacturing cost (less material) also to easily assemble and disassemble the pinion from the bearing.
Regarding claim 7: Hass shows the interference between the pinion (1) and the bearing. However, Haas is silent that the interference is between 0 mm and 0.25 mm.
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have made the interference with interference dimensions such interference between 0 mm and 0.25 mm by running routing experiment a person skill in the art will figure the appropriate interference dimensions. A smaller interference is favorable in mechanical art, having a tolerance allow parts thermal expansion to prevent cracking or bulking.
Regarding claims and 14: Hass shows wherein between the seat of the pinion (1) and a cylindrical surface, radially external, of the radially outer ring there is an interference. Hass is silent about the tolerance class N7. However, tolerance class N7 is commonly used in mechanical art. It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective to have chosen a tolerance class N7 which offer a balance of accuracy and manufacturability. It’s a common grade used for general purpose applications where a moderate level of precision is required.
Regarding claim 15 and 16: Hass Shows wherein said deflecting the teeth of the the first and the second fins (f1, f2) is carried out by means of hammers or compression tools (bending will require compression force).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to have deflect the teeth of fins by hammering, compression tool or any other method that is practical and expediate the manufacturing process resulting in lower manufacturing cost.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4,8-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of the record failed to show wherein each fin comprises: a prismatic base solidly fixed to the respective first or second axially outer annular wall of the pinion, and a tooth orthogonal to the prismatic base, the tooth protruding axially from prismatic base.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument Haas failed to teach the first and second fins are configured to be deflected, during an assembly of the unit, to abut the bearing unit so that the bearing unit is
locked axially inside the seat by the first and second fins. And the gear 1 of Haas is made of plastic and "is manufactured in a mold containing the deep groove ball bearing 2." Haas: English Translation.² Hass explains "the plastic is introduced into the mold on one side of the ring disk 6" and flows around/through the ring disk 6 and the bearing 2, thereby being secured to the ring disk 6 and the bearing 2. Thus, because the gear 1 is formed by injection molding plastic, the portions f1 and f2 the Office identifies as fins are not deflected (e.g., are not made or designed to be deflected) to abut the bearing 2.
Haas translation of specification states “…The gear 1 comprises an annular gear body portion 5 which in the present instance is made of a shock-absorbing, elastically resilient plastic material such as glass fiber filled polyamid and an annular stiffening ring plate 6 of sheet metal embedded in the gear body 5…”
The gear is made of plastic part and metal part (6, Ring plate) The ring plate is made of metal and ends f1 and f2 are bent/deflected to hold the bearing unit outer ring (20) (see fig 3 and 5)
[AltContent: textbox (f1)][AltContent: textbox (f2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
713
549
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
740
565
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, reference WO 2020/109879 shows pinon (13) with bearing and fins (52).
Reference JPH 1182689 shows also pinion (5) with bearing (10) and fins (701) and (901) (see fig 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAKARIA ELAHMADI whose telephone number is (571)270-5324. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZAKARIA ELAHMADI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3618