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 .
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, 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Haas [DE 3322907].
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 designed to be deflected ( the sides/flaps are bent, see fig 5 and see translation “…One collar section 23 is formed by flaps 25 bent in one axial direction (upwards in Fig. 3) on the inner edge of the ring disc 6, while the other collar section 24 is formed by flaps 26 bent in the other direction (downwards in Fig. 3) on the inner edge of the ring disc 6.The individual lobes 25, 26 are alternately bent over on the circumference of the inner edge of the ring disc 6. …” see also “…At the lower end of the hub section 8 in the drawing in Fig. 3, an annular retaining shoulder 28 is cast on, which is stiffened section by section by radially inwardly pointing end sections 29 of the flaps 26…”, see also fig 4), 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.
Regarding claim 21: Haas shows wherein the teeth (23 and 24) extend axially prior to insertion of the bearing unit into the seat and extend substantially radially after insertion of the bearing unit into the seat.
Regarding claim 22: Haas shows wherein the teeth engage outer annular edges of the radially outer ring after being folded (see fig 3, the flaps 25 and 26 are bent to hold the bearing unit).
Regarding claim 23: Haas shows wherein the teeth are folded approximately 90 degrees after insertion of the bearing unit into the seat (see fig 3, the bend portion of 24).
Regarding claim 24: Haas shows wherein inserting the bearing unit (2+4+20) into the seat is performed before deflecting the teeth of the first and second fins.
Regarding claim 25: Haas shows wherein the first and second fins axially lock the bearing unit within the seat by engagement with respective annular edges of the radially outer ring (“…The cylindrical bore of the hub section 8 of the wheel body 5 and the radially inner boundary surfaces 19 of the lobes 25, 26 form a common support surface for a bearing element (not shown).The gear 22 is therefore supported directly on the bearing element via the flaps 25, 26…”).
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 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 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, 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.
The prior arts of the record do not show wherein the first fin has a plurality of teeth circumferentially spaced apart from one another on the first axially outer annular wall, and the second fin has a plurality of teeth circumferentially spaced apart from one another on the second axially outer annular wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant argument that Haas fails to disclose first and second fins that are designed to be deflected during
assembly to abut the bearing unit. With reference to Figure 1 of Haas, the Office has identified
portions fl and f2 of the metal ring disk 6 as corresponding to the claimed first and second fins.
However, as shown in Fig. 1 of Haas, the metal ring disk 6 is not bent around both axial ends of
the outer ring 20. Rather, the ring disk 6 is merely embedded in the plastic material that forms
around the outer ring 20 during injection molding.
The disk 6 has two collars 23 and 24 each of these collars are formed by flaps 25 and 26 each of these flaps has and end that is holding the bearing.
The English translation of Hass sates the following “…One collar section 23 is formed by flaps 25 bent in one axial direction (upwards in Fig. 3) on the inner edge of the ring disc 6, while the other collar section 24 is formed by flaps 26 bent in the other direction (downwards in Fig. 3) on the inner edge of the ring disc 6.The individual lobes 25, 26 are alternately bent over on the circumference of the inner edge of the ring disc 6. …” see also “…At the lower end of the hub section 8 in the drawing in Fig. 3, an annular retaining shoulder 28 is cast on, which is stiffened section by section by radially inwardly pointing end sections 29 of the flaps 26…”, see also fig 4)
[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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights