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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation” of claim 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 recites “a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis” should be -- a first circumferentially constant angle, a, relative to a shield axis-- to make it clear that “a” is a variable and not part of the grammar of the claim.
Claims 1 and 11 recites “a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation” should be -- a second circumferentially constant angle, b, relative to the shield axis of rotation--.
Claims 12 and 13 recite “The wheel hub”. This should be changed to --The method-- to be consistent with claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 “the mounting portion is tubular and extends parallel to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring and the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring, and wherein the annular flanged portion is perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion makes a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite since the claim requires structure from both an intermediate product (shield geometry before mounting) and a final product (wheel hub with shield geometry after mounting). This renders the scope of the claim indefinite. Are the claims drawn to the intermediate product or the final product? Furthermore, the claims recite shield geometry prior to mounting which is not found in the final product since the geometry between the two states of the shield changes. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner has rejected the claims under two scenarios: a) the intermediate product does not limit the final product in any meaningful way and b) the intermediate product provides unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art).
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, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574.
Re clm 1, Barberis discloses a wheel hub unit (Fig. 1) for vehicles comprising: a radially outer ring (3), a radially inner ring (4), a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation, and an axially symmetric seal assembly (1) including a shaped shield (10) mounted with an interference fit ([0047]) on the radially inner ring, the shaped shield having an annular flanged portion (16, Fig. 2) and a mounting portion (15, Fig. 2 and 3) integral with the annular flanged portion, wherein the mounting portion is tubular and extends parallel to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring ([0041]) and the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle ([0036]) a relative to a shield axis of rotation (A) before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring, and wherein the annular flanged portion is perpendicular (as shown in Fig. 2 by 16) to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion makes a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring (there must be some angle value between 16 and 15, Fig. 2 before installation).
Re clm 2, Barberis further discloses the first angle is from 0.5° to 3° ([0036]).
Re clm 6, Barberis further discloses the mounting portion has an axially internal end edge (corner at Փa, Fig. 3).
Re clm 10, Barberis further discloses the mounting portion is mounted on a cylindrical surface of the radially inner ring ([0041]).
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Happ U.S. 2020/0392999.
Re clm 1, Happ discloses a wheel hub unit (Fig. 4-5) for vehicles comprising: a radially outer ring (3), a radially inner ring (4), a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation, and an axially symmetric seal assembly (8) including a shaped shield (9) mounted with an interference fit ([0069]) on the radially inner ring, the shaped shield having an annular flanged portion (vertical portion of 9) and a mounting portion (16) integral with the annular flanged portion, wherein the mounting portion is tubular and extends parallel ([0061]) to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion is perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring.
The limitation “the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring, and the annular flanged portion makes a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring” is an intermediate product, while the scope of the invention is a final product. The final product does not include these features. Thus, the features of the shield prior to assembly are given little or no patentable weight. See MPEP § 716.02(b)(III) which states
The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product "when one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for such an unexpectedly superior activity or property." In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). "In order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’ of the unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the intermediate and the end product." Id. at 479.
Re clm 2, the limitation “the first angle is from 0.5° to 3°” is not found in the final product, and thus does not further limit the final product of claim 1.
Re clm 3, the limitation “the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a)” is not found in the final product and thus does not further limit the final product of claim 1 or 2.
Re clm 4, Happ further discloses the shaped shield has a second portion (14) radially external to the mounting portion, the second portion making a third circumferentially constant angle c with respect to the annular flanged portion ([0061]).
Re clm 5, Happ further discloses the third angle c is defined by the relation: c = 90° + k wherein k is a parameter equal to 0% to 50% of the first angle a (90°; [0061]).
Re clm 6, Happ further discloses the mounting portion has an axially internal end edge(right end of 13, Fig. 2).
Re clm 10, Happ further discloses the mounting portion is mounted on a cylindrical surface of the radially inner ring.
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 1-6 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574.
Assuming the shield must have the recited geometries both before and after assembly:
Re clm 1, Happ discloses a wheel hub unit (Fig. 4-5) for vehicles comprising: a radially outer ring (3), a radially inner ring (4), a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation, and an axially symmetric seal assembly (8) including a shaped shield (9) mounted with an interference fit ([0069]) on the radially inner ring, the shaped shield having an annular flanged portion (vertical portion of 9) and a mounting portion (16) integral with the annular flanged portion, wherein the mounting portion is tubular and extends parallel ([0061]) to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion is perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring ([0061]) and the annular flanged portion makes a second circumferentially constant angle b relative to the shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring (some angle exists between 13 and 15, Fig. 2 in the unmounted state).
Happ does not disclose the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring.
Barberis teaches a shield (10, Fig. 1-3) comprising the mounting portion (15) is tubular and extends parallel to the bearing axis of rotation when the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring ([0041]) and the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle ([0036]) a relative to a shield axis of rotation (A) before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the mounting portion is conical and makes a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation before the mounting portion is mounted on the radially inner ring for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface.
Re clm 2, the improvement of Barberis further discloses the first angle is from 0.5° to 3° ([0036]).
Re clm 3, Happ in view of Barberis would inherently provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since this would be an inherent outcome of requiring the flange (15) of Happ to be perpendicular to 13 after mounting ([0061] and Fig. 4-5) while also requiring the mounting portion to be conical before mounting the shield as taught by Barberis.
Assuming Happ in view of Barberis does not inherently disclose the feature of claim 3:
Happ in view of Barberis are silent as to the state of the flange before mounting and does not disclose the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ in view of Barberis and provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since it has been held that where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
The angle between the flanged portion and the axis before mounting is a well-known result and obvious effect variable. In order to provide the desired seal geometry after mounting, it is clear that the geometry of the seal prior to mounting directly affects the after mounting geometry. Put another way, if the angle between the flange and the mounting portion (and thus also the axis) is too large or too small, then the resulting mounted geometry will provide a flange that is not perpendicular to the axis (either larger or smaller than 90°).
Re clm 4, Happ further discloses the shaped shield has a second portion (14) radially external to the mounting portion, the second portion making a third circumferentially constant angle c with respect to the annular flanged portion ([0061]).
Re clm 5, Happ further discloses the third angle c is defined by the relation: c = 90° + k wherein k is a parameter equal to 0% to 50% of the first angle a (90°; [0061]).
Re clm 6, Happ further discloses the mounting portion has an axially internal end edge(right end of 13, Fig. 2).
Re clm 10, Happ further discloses the mounting portion is mounted on a cylindrical surface of the radially inner ring.
Re clm 11, Happ discloses a method comprising: providing a radially outer ring (3, Fig. 4-5), a radially inner ring (4) and a plurality of rolling elements (6) interposed between the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring to make the radially inner ring and the radially outer ring relatively rotatable with respect to a bearing axis of rotation (2), providing an axially symmetric seal assembly (8) including a shaped shield (9) having an annular flanged portion (15) and a mounting portion (13) integral with the annular flanged portion, the annular flanged portion making a second circumferentially constant angle b (90°; [0061]) relative to the shield axis of rotation, pressing the shaped shield ([0069]) onto a cylindrical portion of the radially inner ring with an interference fit such that the mounting portion is caused to become cylindrical by engagement with the radially inner ring and the annular flanged portion is caused to become perpendicular to the bearing axis of rotation (Fig. 2 and 4-5; pressing 13 on to cylindrical surface of 4 will ensure 13 is also cylindrical).
Happ does not disclose the mounting portion being conical and making a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation.
Barberis teaches a shield (10, Fig. 1-3) comprising the mounting portion (15) being conical and making a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation ([0036] and [0041]) for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the mounting portion being conical and making a first circumferentially constant angle a relative to a shield axis of rotation for the purpose of providing axial locking of the shield on the mounting surface.
Re clm 12, the improvement of Barberis further discloses the first angle is from 0.5° to 3° ([0036]).
Re clm 13, Happ in view of Barberis would inherently provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since this would be an inherent outcome of requiring the flange (15) of Happ to be perpendicular to 13 after mounting ([0061] and Fig. 4-5) while also requiring the mounting portion to be conical before mounting the shield as taught by Barberis.
Assuming Happ in view of Barberis does not inherently disclose the feature of claim 3:
Happ in view of Barberis are silent as to the state of the flange before mounting and does not disclose the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ in view of Barberis and provide the second angle is defined by the relation (90° - 0.6a) < b< (90° + 0.6a), since it has been held that where 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). The angle between the flanged portion and the axis before mounting is a well-known result and obvious effect variable. In order to provide the desired seal geometry after mounting, it is clear that the geometry of the seal prior to mounting directly affects the after mounting geometry. Put another way, if the angle between the flange and the mounting portion (and thus also the axis) is too large or too small, then the resulting mounted geometry will provide a flange that is not perpendicular to the axis.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 or Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574 as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Duch U.S. 2020/0207147.
Happ or Happ in view of Barberis discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 7, Happ further discloses the shaped shield is made from sheet metal ([0029]).
Happ does not disclose a thickness of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm.
Duch discloses a sealing element (50, Fig. 2) of a wheel hub in which a thickness (55) of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm ([0021]) for the purpose of providing a stable and strong mounting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide a thickness of the mounting portion and the annular flanged portion is between 0.4 mm and 0.8 mm for the purpose of providing a stable and strong mounting.
Re clm 8, the improvement of Duch further discloses a diametral interference between the mounting portion and a mounting seat at the end edge is from 0.05 mm to 0.35 mm ([0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Duch U.S. 2020/0207147 or Happ U.S. 2020/0392999 in view of Barberis U.S. 2015/0151574 and Duch U.S. 2020/0207147 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Suzuki U.S. 2015/0069826.
Happ in view of Duch or Happ in view of Barberis and Duch discloses all the claimed subject matter as described above.
Re clm 9, Happ does not disclose the mounting seat is made of steel and has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm.
Suzuki teaches the hub being formed of steel ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the unknown material of the hub (and in turn the mounting seat) of Happ with that of steel, since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP § 2144.07.
Suzuki teaches a mounting seat (20, Fig. 2) of a sealing element made of steel ([0077]) and has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm ([0085] and [0113]) for the purpose of providing an improved sealing effect between the seal and the mounting seat since a rougher surface would provide more opportunity for leakage between the seal and the mounting seat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Happ and provide the mounting seat has a roughness Ra less than or equal to 0.8 µm for the purpose of providing an improved sealing effect between the seal and the mounting seat since a rougher surface would provide more opportunity for leakage between the seal and the mounting seat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN B WAITS whose telephone number is (571)270-3664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6-4 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 R 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.
/ALAN B WAITS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617