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 § 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 8, 12, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jober (DE 102008014105 A1; see the Office provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 8, Jober discloses a wheel hub for a utility vehicle drive axle, comprising:
a hollow section (the center area of 106) extending between a first axial end (the right end of 102) and a second axial end (the left end of 102), the hollow section having centering sections (the finger-like projections that extends axially from the left side of 108), the centering sections defining a centering outer diameter (the outer diameter of the viewed centering sections) of the hollow section for centering at least one wheel rim on the hollow section, the centering sections being separated from one another in the circumferential direction by intermediate sections (the sections between the viewed centering sections), each of the intermediate sections being radially recessed relative to the centering sections (the viewed intermediate sections have an outer diameter smaller than that of the outer diameter of the viewed centering sections); and
a flange section (108) transitioning from the first axial end of the hollow section, the flange section projecting radially outwards relative to the hollow section, the at least one wheel rim being couplable to the flange section (108 is a wheel flange thus connects to a wheel); and
a base section (104), the hollow section transitions at the second axial end into the base section, the second axial end being opposite the first axial end (see Figure 1), the base section extending radially inwardly from the hollow section, the hollow section and the base section together delimiting an interior (the interior of 106), projections (114) are formed on the base section and project axially into the interior (114 goes into the interior of 106 when 104 is inserted into 102), each of the projections being configured to guide a respective planet gear (118) of a planetary gear set (104 is a planet carrier section).
Jober does not disclose that the intermediate sections being formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intermediate sections 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 intermediate sections and make the intermediate sections be formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections, the intermediate sections 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.
Regarding claim 12, Jober discloses that the centering sections and the intermediate sections are axially formed in a region on the hollow section (see Figure 1), the at least one wheel rim **[being receivable on the hollow section at the region for coupling to the flange section]**.
Regarding claim 13, Jober discloses that the wheel hub is a cast part (see page 3 / Line 24 of the Office provided machine translation),
Jober does not disclose the intermediate sections being formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections after the wheel hub is cast.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intermediate sections 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 intermediate sections and make the intermediate sections be formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections after the wheel hub is cast, the intermediate sections 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.
Regarding claim 15, Jober discloses that the hollow section (the center area of 106) and the flange section (108) of the wheel hub are cast as one piece (Page 3 / Line 24 of the machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Jober discloses that the projections (114) form part of a planet carrier (110, 112; 114 connects 110 to 112 thus forming a planet carrier) of the planetary gear set.
Claims 11, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jober (DE 102008014105 A1; see the Office provided machine translation) in view of Shibukawa et al. (US 8,740,742 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Jober discloses that an outer diameter (the outer diameter of 106) of the hollow section, and the second axial end being opposite the first axial end (see Figure 1).
Jober does not disclose that the outer diameter of the hollow section decreases from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end.
Shibukawa et al. teaches an outer diameter of a hollow section (17 in Figure 4) that decreases from a right axial end (the right end of 17) toward a second axial end (the left end of 17).
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 outer diameter of the hollow section of Jober to decrease from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end, as taught by Shibukawa et al., for the purpose of reducing the overall size of the wheel hub thus aiding in reducing the weight of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Jober in view of Shibukawa et al. discloses that the outer diameter of the hollow section decreases linearly from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end (Jober is modified by Shibukawa in the rejection of claim 11 to have the outer surface of 106 of Jober taper from the centering outer diameter to the left end of 106 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 18, Jober discloses a wheel hub for a utility vehicle drive axle, comprising:
a hollow section (the center area of 106) extending between a first axial end (the right end of 102) and a second axial end (the left end of 102), the hollow section having centering sections (the finger-like projections that extends axially from the left side of 108), the centering sections defining a centering outer diameter (the outer diameter of the viewed centering sections) of the hollow section for centering at least one wheel rim on the hollow section, the centering sections being separated from one another in the circumferential direction by intermediate sections (the sections between the viewed centering sections), each of the intermediate sections being radially recessed relative to the centering sections (the viewed intermediate sections have an outer diameter smaller than that of the outer diameter of the viewed centering sections), the centering sections and the intermediate sections being axially formed in a region on the hollow section (see Figure 1), an outer diameter (the outer diameter of 106) of the hollow section, and the second axial end being opposite the first axial end (see Figure 1); and
a flange section (108) transitioning from the first axial end of the hollow section, the flange section projecting radially outwards relative to the hollow section, the at least one wheel rim being couplable to the flange section (108 is a wheel flange thus connects to a wheel); and
wherein the at least one wheel rim **[is receivable on the hollow section at the region for coupling to the flange section]**.
Jober does not disclose that the outer diameter of the hollow section decreases from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end.
Shibukawa et al. teaches an outer diameter of a hollow section (17 in Figure 4) that decreases from a right axial end (the right end of 17) toward a second axial end (the left end of 17).
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 outer diameter of the hollow section of Jober to decrease from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end, as taught by Shibukawa et al., for the purpose of reducing the overall size of the wheel hub thus aiding in reducing the weight of the vehicle.
Jober does not disclose that the intermediate sections being formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the intermediate sections 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 intermediate sections and make the intermediate sections be formed by machining the hollow section between the centering sections, the intermediate sections 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.
Regarding claim 19, Jober in view of Shibukawa et al. discloses that the outer diameter of the hollow section decreases from the centering outer diameter and the region toward the second axial end (Jober is modified by Shibukawa in the rejection of claim 11 to have the outer surface of 106 of Jober taper from the centering outer diameter to the left end of 106 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 20, Jober in view of Shibukawa et al. discloses that the outer diameter of the hollow section decreases linearly from the centering outer diameter toward the second axial end (Jober is modified by Shibukawa in the rejection of claim 11 to have the outer surface of 106 of Jober taper from the centering outer diameter to the left end of 106 thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 21, Jober discloses that at least the hollow section (the center area of 106) and the flange section (108) of the wheel hub are cast as one piece (Page 3 / Line 24 of the machine translation).
Claim 14, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waim et al. (US 12,145,436 B2) in view of Jober (DE 102008014105 A1; see the Office provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Waim et al. discloses a utility vehicle drive axle (3), comprising:
a drive shaft (10) coupled to a wheel hub (8).
Waim et al. does not disclose that the wheel hub is the wheel hub of claim 8.
Jober teaches the wheel hub of claim 8 (see the rejection of claim 8 above).
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 wheel hub of Waim et al. to be the wheel hub of claim 8, as taught by Jober, for the purpose of a wheel hub that is capable of having its planetary gear structure be attached to the hub body via adhesive bonds and press fittings thus allowing the wheel hub to be serviced without having detach the wheel hub from the wheel(s).
**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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued on Page 10 of the Remarks that “It is respectfully submitted that Jober does not include any part labeled "14." As such, it is believed that this may be a typographical error in the Office Action for the planet carrier section 104. Clarification is respectfully requested.”
The projections should have been labeled as 114. Element 114 are formed on element 104 and project into the interior of 106 when 104 is inserted into 102. The typographical issue has been corrected above.
The Applicant argued on Page 10 of the Remarks that “Jober specifically describes that the planet wheels 118 are supported by planet pins, with through holes being defined in the second flange portion 112 and blind holes being formed in the first flange 110 for receiving the planet pins. (Jober translation, page 3). As such, Jober does not disclose projections formed on the planet carrier section 104 and projecting axially into the interior at least partially defined by the planet carrier section 104, with each of the projections being configured to guide a respective planet gear of a planetary gear set.”
The projections are viewed as being element 114. The projections are formed on element 104. An opening is formed between each two adjacent projections to form an opening (116) that allows a planet gear (118) to project outward through the opening. Each element 114 is viewed as projecting into the interior of 106 with element 104 when 104 is inserted into 102 thus meeting the claim limitation of “projecting axially into the interior”.
The Applicant argued on Page 14 of the Remarks that “As Shibukawa does not mention whether the drawings are to scale, nor clearly show or reasonably suggest from FIG. 4 that the hub 17 is tapered, it is submitted that FIG. 4 would not reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art to taper a hub. As such, it is believed that the combination of prior art fails to teach or suggest at least "an outer diameter of the hollow section (11) decreasing from the centering outer diameter (21) toward the second axial end (14)," as currently recited in claim 18.”.
As shown in Figure 4 of Shibukawa, the outer circumferential surface of 17 clearly tapers from the right to left direction. The scale of the drawings of Shibukawa have no bearing on whether the outer surface of 17 does or does not taper. One of ordinary skill in the art can see the left end of 17 has a smaller diameter than a portion to the right of the left end as shown in Figure 4.
In response to applicant's argument on Page 15 of the Remarks that “The Office Action also does not explain how Jober teaches such limitation with the discussion of claim 12”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. A wheel rim only needs to be capable of coupling to the flange region to meet the claim limitation, and the flange region of Jober is viewed as meeting this intended use/functional recitation. See MPEP 2114.
The Applicant argued on Page 15 of the Remarks that “Jober specifically teaches that the planet carrier section 104 is provided with a first and a second flange section 110, 112 which are manufactured separately from the casing section 102. (Jober translation, Abstract). Further, Jober teaches that "first the planet carrier section 104 is poured and processed as a separate component, after which then the assembly of the planet gears - preferably from the outside - takes place. Only then does the connection of the module thus produced with the jacket section take place 102, including the planet carrier section 104 and the jacket section 102 be joined and welded together." (Jober translation, page 3). As such, Jober teaches away from having the planet carrier section 104 and the casing section 102 being formed as one piece, as the planet gears could not otherwise be assembled within the planet carrier section of Jober.”
The hollow section of Jober is viewed as being the center area of 106 and the flange section of Jober is viewed as being element 108. Elements 106 and 108 of Jober are not a part of element 104. They are a part of element 102. Furthermore, Page 3 / Line 24 of the machine translation of Jober discloses “The jacket section 102 is as a casting with a pipe section 106 and a wheel flange 108 manufactured.” Thus is viewed as disclosed that 106 and 108 are cast together.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights